ED 452 124

AUTHORTITLEINSTITUTIONPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

JOURNAL CITEDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

SO 032 685

Martz, CarltonWealth and Power.Constitutional Rights Foundation, Los Angeles, CA.

2000-00-0018p.; Bill Hayes, Editor. Theme issue. Published quarterly.Constitutional Rights Foundation, 601 South Kingsley Drive,Los Angeles, CA 90005. Tel: 213-487-5590; Fax: 213-386-0459;

For full text: http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria16_2html.Collected Works - Serials (022) -- Guides - Classroom -

Teacher (052)Bill of Rights in Action; v16 n2 Spr 2000MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.Class Activities; *Colonialism; Foreign Countries;Government Role; Learning Activities; *Legal Problems;Secondary Education; *Social Studies; *United StatesHistory; *World HistoryBill of Rights; Congo Free State; Microsoft Corporation;*Power; Rockefeller (John D); *Wealth

This theme issue examines three historical and currentproblems surrounding wealth and power. The first article looks at King

Leopold of Belgium and his exploitation of the Congo. The second article

explores John D. Rockefeller and the Standard Oil monopoly. The final article

examines the antitrust-case against the Microsoft Corporation. Each article

includes questions for class discussion and writing, a further reading list,

and classroom activities. (BT)

0

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the oristinal document.

Wealth and Power

Bill of Rights in Action; v16 n2 Spr 2000

1

Martz, CarltonHayes, Bill, Ed.

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS

BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

2

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educationai Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONiCENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced anreceived tram the person or organizationoriginating IL

0 Minor changes have been made toImprove reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated In thisdocument do not necessarily representpffiClel OERI position or poky.

1,

33111, OFRIGIITS INACTIONCONSTITUTIONAL MONTS FOUNDATION

eoPOOdtero@AIG@,e0

In 1885, King Leopold HofBelgium gained a vast area incentral Africa as his personalpossession. His greed and thesystem of forced labor heimposed there prompted the firsthuman rights movement of the20th century.

wive years after most Europeannations and the United States

had granted colonial status to KingLeopold's "Congo Free State," ayoung merchant seaman traveledup the Congo River in a steamboat.Joseph Conrad was one of the firstoutsiders to witness and later writeabout the horrors committed by

Leopold's regime in itsgreedy pursuit of Congo King Leopold II of Belgium, pictured here in uniform, tookivory and wild rubber. the Congo as his personal possession. (Bettmann/Corbis)

vt

SMOG 2000 VOLUME III NUMB 2 j

In 1902, Conrad publishedhis novel The Heart ofDarkness. In this fictionalstory, a man much like himself travels up a riverinto a rain forest where he meets a Europeanivory trader named Kurtz. The methods Kurtzuses to force the native people to bring him theivory elephant tusks are symbolized by his gunsand a ring of poles around his house. On top ofeach pole is a human head.

Conrad attempted to show that the "heart of dark-ness" lay deep within the Europeans who exploit-ed the land and people of the Congo. But the fullstory of the Congo Free State not only involvesthe evil acts committed there, but also the cam-paign to expose them to world public opinion.

3

algo`Arafg flaoTen years before Columbusreached America, the Portugueseentered the mouth of Africa'sCongo, one of the great rivers ofthe world. At first, good relationsdeveloped between thePortuguese and the several mil-lion inhabitants of the Kingdomof the Congo. The Portuguesedidn't want to conquer or colo-nize the Congo. They only hopedto trade and to introduceChristianity.

The Kingdom of the Congo was astrong unified state known for itsadvanced working of copper andiron. The Congo king welcomedPortuguese traders, artisans, andmissionaries.

onyx

Slavery was a part of the Congoculture. Most slaves were warcaptives, criminals, or debtorswho could eventually earn back

(Continued on next page)

Wealth and PowerThis Bill of Rights in Action examines three historical andcurrent issues surrounding wealth and power. The firstarticle looks at King Leopold of Belgium and hisdeplorable exploitation of the Congo. The second articleexplores John D. Rockefeller and the Standard Oilmonopoly. The final article examines the antitrust caseagainst the Microsoft Corporation.

World History: King Leopold's "Heart of Darkness"

U.S. History: Rockefeller and the Standard OilMonopoly

U.S. Government: United States v. Microsoft

1

20004 Constitsaional Rights Fosandatton, Los Angela. AU Con:Muttony! ItIghu Fountholon materials and publication*, includkg SW of Rights in Action4 are protected by copyright.However: we hereby grant to

all recipientsa &me to rtgooduce oil material contained heretnfor distraution window, other school site personneLand &aria ado:Ink:rata%

their freedom. But Congo clan chiefs and AfricanMuslim slave traders from upriver were happy to selltheir slaves to the Portuguese and other Europeans whotransported them to America. This slave trading gradu-ally depopulated and weakened the once-powerfulKingdom of the Congo.

In the mid-1800s, European maps marked centralAfrica as "unexplored." It remained one of the fewareas of the vast continent not colonized by a Europeanimperial power. But in 1871, journalist Henry M.Stanley electrified Europe when he found adventurerDavid Livingstone who had disappeared years earlieron an African expedition. Stanley then became deter-mined to fully explore the interior ofAfrica.

Historians estimate that 8-10 millionpersons perished from the violence, forcedlabor, and starvation caused by Leopoldslust for power and profits.

Financed by New York and London newspapers,Stanley left the east coast of Africa in 1874 to lead amassive expedition. Battling native peoples andmutinies among his own men, he reached the headwa-ters of the Congo River. He then navigated down theCongo for a thousand miles before encountering a 200 -mile stretch of rapids. He finally arrived at the AtlanticOcean in 1877, having traveled 7,000 miles acrossAfrica. He announced that the Congo "is and will bethe grand highway of commerce to west centralAfrica."

0,2@,,w,M1 00 ftito @ohm,

Leopold II, the king of the Belgians, enthusiasticallyfollowed press accounts of Stanley's travels. Leopoldwas frustrated that tiny Belgium possessed no colonies.As a constitutional monarch, he held little power athome. But he yearned to rule a rich colonial empire.

Leopold invited Stanley to Belgium and persuaded thenow famous explorer to return to the Congo acting asthe king's personal agent. Leopold instructed Stanley,under the guise of doing scientific explorations andcombating slavery, to secretly establish monopoly con-trol over the rich Congo ivory trade. To do this, Stanleyhad to get local clan chiefs to sign treaties turning overtheir lands and the labor of their people to Leopold.

Over the next five years, Stanley signed more than 450treaties with Congo chiefs. Clearly, they had no idea

what they were signing in exchange for the cloth, trin-kets, alcohol, and other cheap goods Stanley gavethem. After Leopold sent agents to lobby Congress, theUnited States became the first nation to recognize hisclaim to the Congo.

In 1884-85, a conference held in Berlin, Germany,decided the colonial status of central Africa.Suspicious of each other's ambitions in the region, theEuropean powers and the United States agreed to grantLeopold possession of the Congo River basin. Thisencompassed nearly a million square miles, an area 80times larger than Belgium. Of course, the people of theCongo took no part in the Berlin Conference and wereunaware that their lives were about to tragically

change.

`siUNG) © DA rivne.s,s

On May 29, 1885, King Leopold's agents proclaimedhim "sovereign" (supreme authority) of the "CongoFree State." In reality, it was neither free nor a state, butthe personal possession of Leopold to do with as hepleased. The delegates to the Berlin Conferenceassumed that all nations would trade freely in

Leopold's colony. "Sovereign" Leopold, however, hadother ideas.

Leopold, who never visited the Congo, issued decreesfrom Belgium. He required the native people to tradeonly with his state agents or with his "concessions"(private companies that paid him 50 percent of theirprofits). The natives hunted elephants for their ivorytusks and gathered sap from wild rubber vines growingin the rain forest. This involved the hard labor of manymen who were often away from their families for long

periods.

Leopold and the concessions gave bonuses to theiragents for paying native workers little for the ivory andrubber. When the Congo people finally refused to con-tinue working under these conditions, Leopold had todevelop a new system of labor. By 1890, Leopold'sregime and the concessions were paying Congo chiefs

to supply "volunteer" workers. The Congo Free Statealso purchased or forcibly took slaves from Muslim

slave traders to work as laborers or soldiers.

In the early 1890s, Leopold's private African army, theForce Publique (Public Force), drove the powerfulMuslim slave traders out of the Congo. While Leopoldportrayed this as a great humanitarian act, his real pur-

4

pose was to gain control of the upperCongo River and to acquire more workers.

Up to this point, Leopold's Congo enter-prises had not made a profit. But his for-tunes changed in the mid-1890s. A worldrubber boom suddenly started, followingthe invention of the inflatable tire. Leopoldand his licensed concessions now neededeven more workers to go deeper into theforest in search of wild rubber.

Leopold decided to "tax" his Congo sub-jects by requiring local chiefs to supplymen to collect rubber. Leopold's agentsheld the wives and children of these men ashostages until they returned with their quo-ta of rubber.

The Congo people rebelled by ambushingarmy units, fleeing their villages to hide inthe wilderness, and setting the rubber vineforests on fire. But Leopold's ForcePublique crushed the rebellion. By 1905,the Force Publique had grown to a fear-some but poorly disciplined army of16,000 African mercenary soldiers led by

_some 350. European officers. They burnedvillages, cut off the heads of uncooperativechiefs, and slaughtered the women andchildren of men refusing to collect rubber.

Force Publique officers sent their soldiersinto the forest to find and kill rebels hidingthere. To prove they had succeeded, sol-diers were ordered to cut off and bring backthe right hand of every rebel they killed. Often, howev-er, soldiers cut off the hands of living persons, evenchildren, to satisfy the quota set by their officers. Thisterror campaign succeeded in getting workers back tocollecting rubber. As a result, Leopold's profits soared.

King Leopold§ Congo Free State encompassed the Congo River Basin, nearly a mil-lion square miles in Central Africa. (Perry-Castaneda Library Map Collection,University ofTexas at Austin)

OG@OVA ScK4etw ®c rersEdmund Dene Morel was a young British shippingclerk. Periodically, his company sent him to the Belgianport of Antwerp to supervise the loading and unloadingof ships. In the late 1890s, Morel made a horrifying dis-covery. He noticed that while the Congo Free Stateexported tons of raw rubber to Belgium, little wasshipped back except guns and bullets. He guessed right-ly that the many natives needed to collect the rubberwere forced to do so at gunpoint. "I had stumbled upon

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

a secret society of murderers with a king for a [part-ner]," he later wrote.

After reading reports written by missionaries aboutCongo atrocities, Morel quit his shipping job in 1901and began a campaign to expose Leopold's Congoregime. Morel worked as a newspaper reporter, madespeeches, and wrote books and pamphlets condemningthe mistreatment of the Congo people. His relentlessactivity caused the British government to send diplomatRoger Casement to the Congo Free State to investigateconditions there. Casement uncovered widespread evi-dence of hostage-taking, floggings, mutilation, forcedlabor, and outright murder.

Following the publication of his report in 1904,Casement joined Morel in organizing the Congo

5(Continued on next page)

Reform Association, which resulted in the first majorhuman rights movement of the 20th century. To exposeLeopold's bloody Congo enterprise, Morel used pho-tographs and slide shows picturing children whosehands had been cut of Morel also expanded his move-ment to the United States where he met with PresidentTheodore Roosevelt and enlisted the support of BookerT. Washington and Mark Twain.

Leopold struck back with a massive propaganda effort,which included lobbying both the British Parliamentand U.S. Congress. But Morel's pleas for human rightsin the Congo turned public opinion against the Belgianking.

Under pressure from Britain and the United States,Leopold turned over ownership of the Congo Free Stateto the Belgian government in 1908. But he demandedand received a huge cash payment and other benefitsfrom Belgium for "his great sacrifices made for theCongo." Again, the Congo people had no say in theirfate.

The Belgian government eliminated the worst abusesagainst the native people of the Congo. But the landalong with its rubber and mineral resources remainedfirmly under European control. Belgium did little toimprove the well-being of the people or to involve themin administering the colony.

Rich in copper, diamonds, oil, uranium, and other min-erals, the Congo became an independent nation in 1960.In 1965, however, army leader Joseph Mobutu seizedpower. Like Leopold, Mobutu used his dictatorial pow-ers to funnel the wealth of the Congo into his own pock-ets. Although Mobutu was finally overthrown in 1997,the future of self-rule in today's Democratic Republicof the Congo still remains uncertain.

King Leopold's Congo Free State was an economic,environmental, cultural, and human disaster for theCongo people. Historians estimate that 8-10 millionpersons perished from the violence, forced labor, andstarvation caused by Leopold's lust for power and prof-its. When he died in 1909 at age 74, much of the worlddespised him. American poet Vachel Lindsay wrote thisepitaph:

Listen to the yell of Leopold's ghost

Burning in Hell for his hand-maimed host,

Hear how the demons chuckle and yell

Cutting his hands off, down in Hell.

I OP Measaloup 'Maros1. Describe the system of labor put into place by

Leopold to gather ivory and wild rubber. Was this aform of slavery?

2. How did Edmund Morel almost singlehandedlyconvince the world that something terrible was hap-pening in King Leopold's Congo Free State?

3. What was "the heart of darkness"?

Ver [art e OcclannoBauer, Ludwig. Leopold the Unloved. Boston: Little,Brown and Co., 1935.

Hochschild, Adam. King Leopold's Ghost. Boston:Houghton Mifflin, 1998.

u ei

DOlf3 BARK=The Congo Free State was an extreme example of onecountry exploiting another. Similar concerns arisetoday over the behavior of large corporations doingbusiness in undeveloped countries. What standardsshould these corporations use for wages, worker safety,child labor, and environmental issues? Some argue thatforeign corporations in undeveloped countries shoulduse the same standards they employ elsewhere in theworld. Anything less, they say, exploits workers and theenvironment. Others argue that corporations shouldhonor the laws of their host country and do not need tobring other standards with them. Corporations, they say,offer much to poorer countries in terms of jobs, educa-tion, and economic development. They believe thatputting restrictions on them would keep them awayfrom these countries.

In this activity, students role play a U.S congressionalcommittee deciding whether to impose standards onAmerican corporations doing business in undevelopedcountries.

1. Divide students into small groups, each group roleplaying a congressional committee.

2. Each group should discuss and decide whether theUnited States should impose standards in each ofthe following areas: wages, worker safety, childlabor, and the environment.

3. The groups should report their decisions and thereasons for them to the whole class.

6

ef Ego3 crudme]EleE6

Rrici®mopob

Following the Civil War, few lawslimited how businesses wentabout making money. In buildingthe giant Standard Oil monopoly,John D. Rockefeller made up hisown rules.

TD) om in 1837, John Davidson.1.111110Rockefeller grew up in ruralNew York. His father was a peddlerof doubtful medical cures, abigamist, and possibly a horse thief.When he was around, however,"Devil Bill" (as the neighborscalled him) carefully instructedJohn how to keep meticulousaccount of his money and to outwitany business competitor. John'smother, Eliza, had a far differentinfluence on him. A deeply religiouswoman, she taught him to be chari-table.

John D. Rockefeller, the richest man in the world,strolls with his son in 1915. (Bettmann/Corbis)

John lived in an age when owners of industries oper-ated without much interference from government.Even the income tax did not exist. Rockefeller builtan oil monopoly by ruthlessly eliminating most of hiscompetitors. This made him the richest man in theworld. But he spent his retirement years giving awaymost of his money. The unlikely match between

"Devil Bill" and Eliza Rockefeller produceda son who would paradoxically become themost hated and admired man in America.

UNG Stamiacid IZIorr

Shortly before the Civil War, Rockefeller anda partner established a shipping company inCleveland, Ohio. The company made muchmoney during the war. In 1863, he and hispartner invested in another business thatrefined crude oil from Pennsylvania intokerosene for illuminating lamps.

By 1870, Rockefeller and new partners wereoperating two oil refineries in Cleveland,then the major oil refining center of the coun-try. The partners incorporated (under a char-

ter issued by the state ofOhio) and called their busi-ness the Standard OilCompany.

To give Standard Oil an edgeover its competitors, Rock-efeller secretly arranged fordiscounted shipping ratesfrom railroads. The railroadscarried crude oil toStandard's refineries inCleveland and kerosene tothe big city markets. Manyargued that as "common car-riers" railroads should notdiscriminate in their ship-ping charges. But small busi-nesses and farmers wereoften forced to pay higherrates than big shippers likeStandard Oil.

The oil industry in the late1800s often experiencedsudden booms and busts,which led to wildly fluctuat-ing prices and price wars

among the refiners. More than anything else,Rockefeller wanted to control the unpredictable oilmarket to make his profits more dependable.

In 1871, Rockefeller helped form a secret alliance ofrailroads and refiners. They planned to control freightrates and oil prices by cooperating with one another.The deal collapsed when the railroads backed out.But before this happened, Rockefeller used the threatof this deal to intimidate more than 20 Clevelandrefiners to sell out to Standard Oil at bargain prices.When the so-called "Cleveland Massacre" ended inMarch 1872, Standard controlled 25 percent of theU.S. oil industry.

Rockefeller saw Standard Oil's takeover of theCleveland refiners as inevitable. He said it illustrated"the battle of the new idea of cooperation againstcompetition." In his mind, large industrial combina-tions, more commonly known as monopolies, wouldreplace individualism and competition in business.

Rockefeller planned to buy out as many other oilrefineries as he could. To do this, he often used hard-

(Continued on next page)

ball tactics. In 1874, Standardstarted acquiring new oilpipeline networks. Thisenabled the company to cut offthe flow of crude oil to refiner-ies Rockefeller wanted to buy.When a rival companyattempted to build a competingpipeline across Pennsylvania,Standard Oil bought up landalong the way to block it.Rockefeller also resorted tooutright bribery ofPennsylvania legislators. Inthe end, Rockefeller made adeal with the other company,which gave Standard Oil own-ership of nearly all the oilpipelines in the nation.

By 1880, Standard Oil ownedor controlled 90 percent of theU.S. oil refining business,making it the first great indus-trial monopoly, in the world.But in achieving this position,Standard violated its Ohiocharter, which prohibited thecompany from doing businessoutside the state. Rockefeller and his associatesdecided to move Standard Oil from Cleveland to NewYork City and to form a new type of business organi-zation called a "trust."

1!.. .'Oar

This 19th-century cartoon portrays John D. Rockefelleras "king of the world " He holds a kerosene lamp in onehand and the world in the other (Bettmann/Corbis)

Under the new arrangement (done in secret), ninemen, including Rockefeller, held "in trust" stock inStandard Oil of Ohio and 40 other companies that itwholly or partly owned. The trustees directed themanagement of the entire enterprise and distributeddividends (profits) to all stockholders.

When the Standard Oil Trust was formed in 1882, itproduced most of the world's lamp kerosene, owned4,000 miles of pipelines, and employed 100,000workers. Rockefeller often paid above-averagewages to his employees, but he strongly opposed anyattempt by them to join labor unions. Rockefellerhimself owned one-third of Standard Oil's stock,worth about $20 million.

During the 1880s, Standard Oil divided the UnitedStates into 11 districts for selling kerosene and other

."

oil products. To stimulatedemand, the company sold oreven gave away cheap lampsand stoves. It also created pho-ny companies that appeared tocompete with Standard Oil,their real owner. When inde-pendent companies tried tocompete, Standard Oil quicklycut pricessometimes belowcostto drive them out ofbusiness. Then Standard raisedprices to recoup its losses.

Much of the trust's effort wentinto killing off competition.But Standard Oil whileRockefeller was in commandalso usually provided goodquality products at fairly rea-sonable prices. Rockefelleroften declared that the wholepurpose of Standard Oil was tosupply "the poor man's light."

1Tto A t4trust Movenve 1

By 1900, the Standard Oil Trusthad expanded from its original

base in the East to new oil regions further west. At thesame time, a wave of anti-monopoly sentiment sweptthe United States. Farmer organizations, laborunions, muckraking journalists, and many politiciansattacked such combinations as the,sugar and tobaccotrusts. But they especially targeted the "mother trust,"Standard Oil.

By this time, nearly 30 states and the federal govern-ment had passed antitrust laws that attackedmonopoly abuses. These laws usually rested on a setof legal and economic assumptions:

1. The common law, inherited from England, con-demned the restraint of trade.

2. Monopolies tended to restrain trade by keepingprices high, suppressing product improvements,and making excessive profits.

3. Competition among many independent firms wasnecessary to assure fair prices, high- quality prod-ucts, and reasonable profits.

8

Starting with Ohio in 1887, 10 states and theOklahoma Territory filed 33 separate lawsuits againstcompanies affiliated with the Standard Oil Trust. Inmost cases, Standard lost in court. But Standard'sdirectors reorganized the trust shifted operations fromstate to state, and otherwise evaded court rulings tomaintain their monopoly.

Since state lawsuits against Standard Oil were goingnowhere, muckraking journalists pressed for federalaction against the trust.

Starting in November 1902, Ida Tarbell wrote a seriesof 19 carefully researched articles in McClure'sMagazine. She detailed how John D. Rockefellerruthlessly forced his competitors to "sell or perish."She correctly identified railroad discounts, specifical-ly outlawed by the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887,as key to creating Rockefeller's Standard Oil

monopoly.

Called "Miss Tarbarrel" and "this poison woman" byRockefeller, Tarbell helped push the federal govern-ment to investigate the Standard Oil Trust. Whilepublicly attacking Standard Oil and other trusts,President Theodore Roosevelt did not favor breakingthem up. He preferred only to stop their anti-competi-tive abuses.

On November 18, 1906, the U.S. attorney generalunder Roosevelt sued Standard Oil of New Jersey andits affiliated companies making up the trust. The suitwas filed under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.Under this federal law, "Every contract, or combina-tion, in restraint of trade or commerce among the sev-eral States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declaredto be illegal."

Matmokat ®30 UBMGc3

The Standard Oil trial took place in 1908 before aMissouri federal court. More than 400 witnesses testi-fied. The government produced evidence that theStandard Oil Trust had secured illegal railroad dis-counts, blocked competitors from using oil pipelines,spied on other companies, and bribed elected officials.Moreover, the government showed that from1895-1906 Standard's kerosene prices increased 46percent, giving enormous profits to the monopoly.

Although Rockefeller was technically president ofStandard Oil, he had retired from active managementin 1895. But he remained the single largest stockhold-er. Rockefeller testified that Standard Oil achieved its

States

c7

position because its combination of cooperating com-panies was more efficient and produced a better prod-uct than its rivals. When cross-examined on howStandard Oil grew so dominant, the 71-year-oldRockefeller frequently stated that he could notremember.

Attorneys for Standard Oil contended that the largecombination of companies making up the trust haddeveloped naturally and actually saved the industryfrom destructive price wars. They also argued thatsince Standard Oil was a manufacturing business, itwas exempt from the Sherman Act, which onlyaddressed interstate commerce.

Both the trial judge and a unanimous federal appealscourt agreed that Standard Oil was a monopoly violat-ing the Sherman Antitrust Act. They also supportedthe government's recommendation that the trustshould be dissolved into independent competing com-panies. Standard Oil then appealed to the U.S.Supreme Court.

From 1895-1906 Standard's 7kerosene prices increased

46 percent, giving enormousprofits to the monopoly.

On May 15, 1911, the Supreme Court unanimouslyupheld the federal appeals court and ruled that theStandard Oil Trust was a monopoly that illegallyrestrained trade. All but one justice, however, went onto hold that only monopolies that restrained trade in"unreasonable" ways were illegal. Although it foundthat Standard Oil did, in fact, act unreasonably, theSupreme Court's use of the "rule of reason" made itmore difficult for government to prosecute othermonopolies [Standard Oil of New Jersey v. UnitedStates].

The Supreme Court justices concluded that to restorecompetition in the oil industry, the Standard Oil Trustwould have to be broken into independent companies.But the government permitted Standard Oil stock-holders to each receive fractional shares in all 34 com-panies that were formed. This meant that each ofthesecompanies had exactly the same stockholder owners.These companies were then supposed to compete withone another. In reality, the companies had little real

9(Continued on next page)

incentive to do this and acted together in setting pricesfor a decade or more.

Following new petroleum discoveries in the UnitedStates and abroad, independent oil companies finallybrought real competition to the industry. But the formerStandard Oil companies, with modem names likeExxon, Mobil, Amoco, Chevron, ARCO, Conoco, andSohio, continued to exercise significant influence onoil pricing.

When the Supreme Court broke up the Standard OilTrust in 1911, electric lights were rapidly replacingkerosene lamps. But the gasoline-driven automobilewas just beginning to appear. Gasoline, up to that timea useless byproduct of oil refining, made the compa-nies formed from the trust wealthier than they had everbeen. Rockefeller, owning a 25 percent share in each ofthe new companies, was worth $900 million in 1913($13 billion in today's dollars). This made him the rich-est man in the world.

In retirement, Rockefeller made a science of philan-thropy. He and his son gave away most of theRockefeller millions, mainly to medical research, pub-lic health, and educational institutions. Even so, he bit-terly objected to the federal income tax when it beganin 1913.

Economist Robert Heilbroner once described John D.Rockefeller as "an agent for better and worse in theimmense industrial transformation of America."Outliving most of his business associates and critics,John D. Rockefeller died in 1937, a few weeks short ofhis 98th birthday.

Ver sc, s Writing1. Explain why John D. Rockefeller was "an agent for

better and worse" in American history.

2. Do you agree with the Supreme Court's decision in1911 that the Standard Oil Trust had violated theSherman Antitrust Act? Why or why not?

3. In 1911, the Supreme Court ruled that only monop-olies "unreasonably" restraining trade were illegal.Today, do you think that all monopolies should beillegal? Why or why not?

030Aboo GiOstlanG

Bringhurst, Bruce. Antitrust and the Oil Monopoly:The Standard Oil Cases, 1890-1911. Westport, Conn.:Greenwood Press, 1979.

Chemow, Ron. Man, The Life of John D. RockefellerSr New York: Vintage Books, 1998.

Money

&©40WOUV1:0LZ ey on .y

Many Americans seek great wealth. Some, like John D.Rockefeller, achieve it. After Rockefeller got his for-tune, he spent the rest of his life giving his moneyaway. In this activity, students will research other high-ly successful American business people and reportback to the class on (1) how they made their fortune,(2) what they did with it, and (3) why. Each studentshould select a person to report on from the listbelow. For students using the Internet to research,CRF's research links http://www.crf-usa.org/links/research 1.html is a good place to start.

Andrew Carnegie

Walt Disney

Henry Ford

James Gamble

J. Paul Getty

Samuel GoldwynAmadeo GianniniHetty Green

William Randolf Hearst

William IL Hewlett

Howard Hughes

H. L. HuntJoseph P. Kennedy Sr.

10

Ray Kroc

Estee LauderDaniel K. LudwigJohn D. MacArthur

Louis B. MayerAndrew William Mellon

Charles MerrillJ. Pierpont Morgan

Jay Pritzker

David SarnoffCharles M. Schulz

Cornelius Vanderbilt

Samuel M. Walton

JuntJ 0no Cyr]crosoftIn 1999, a federal judgefound that Microsoft, theworld's biggest softwarecompany, is a monopoly thathas stifled competition.Microsoft now faces legalconsequences as well asrapidly evolving technolo-gies. Both may challenge itsdomination of the computersoftware industry.

The Microsoft CorporationThethe largest computer

software company in theworld. The chairman of thiscompany is multi-billionaireBill Gates, the wealthiest manin the world. Like Standard Oilat the turn of the 20th centuryand AT&T in the 1970s and '80s, Microsoft has cur-

rently become the target of antitrust lawsuits.The suits charge Microsoft with illegallymonopolizing 90 percent of the computer soft-ware market with its Windows operating sys-tem. The courts still have to decide Microsoft'slegal fate.

Qn

0V

R

N

hill

11

Battle of! MO BrowsersIn 1975, Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard andjoined with his friend, Paul Allen, to form asoftware company named Microsoft. The com-pany took off when Gates and Allen improvedsome operating system software and licensed itto IBM.

After Apple dev6loped the first point-and-clickoperating system for the Macintosh in 1984,Microsoft produced its own version, calledWindows. Today, with Windows installed inabout 90 percent of the world's computers,Microsoft stock is valued at more than $550billion. Gates, 44, owns about 15 percent ofMicrosoft stock, making him the richest man inthe world.

In the early 1990s, the U.S. government beganto investigate Microsoft for using unfair prac-tices in competing against other companies.

Reprinted with special permission from King Features Syndicate.

One of these practices required computer makers whowanted to license Windows to pay a fee for everymachine they manufactured, even those with otheroperating systems.

To avoid a costly lawsuit, Microsoft agreed to stoppractices like this. A court order known as a consentdecree formalized the agreement in 1995.

By the mid-1990s, the Internet had opened a new wayto use computers for millions of people. To reach theInternet's graphical World Wide Web, users need asoftware application known as a "browser." TheNetscape Company was the first to flood the browsermarket with its Navigator (later renamedCommunicator). Belatedly, Gates recognized theInternet's potential and introduced Microsoft's ownbrowser, called Explorer.

In 1995, Microsoft started to require computer manu-facturers licensed to install Windows to include, or"bundle," Explorer at no extra charge to the consumer.If these companies refused to add Explorer to theWindows desktop, they would lose their license toinstall the popular operating system on their comput-ers. Netscape complained that Microsoft was compet-ing unfairly, first by giving Explorer away free andsecond by forcing the manufacturers to make it thedefault browser on their computers. Since more than

(Continued on next page)

Reprinted with special permission from King Features Syndicate.

85 percent of the computers sold at this time includedWindows bundled with Explorer, sales of Netscape'sNavigator plummeted.

Claiming that Microsoft had violated the 1995 con-sent decree, U.S. Attorney General Janet Renoobtained another court order late in 1997. It directedMicrosoft to offer computer makers the choice ofinstalling Windows with or without the Explorer webbrowser. This time, however, Gates balked andappealed the court order.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Justice Department consideredadditional legal action against the giant software com-pany for antitrust law violations. By spring 1998,Microsoft dominated 90 percent of the operating sys-tem software market, while its Explorer browser wasrapidly replacing Netscape's Navigator.

In May 1998, after fruitless attempts to settle withMicrosoft out of court, the federal government, 20states, and the District of Columbia sued the companyunder the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. TheSherman Act prohibits attempts by businesses tomonopolize a market by unfairly eliminating competi-tion. This was the same law the government used to go

By spring 1998, Microsoftdominated 90 percent of theoperating system software market, whileits Explorer browser was rapidlyreplacing Netscape's Navigator

gi®

after AT&T 20 years ago and Rockefeller'sStandard Oil almost a hundred years ago.

Joel Klein, head of the Justice Department'sAntitrust Division, declared, "What cannotbe toleratedand what the antitrust lawsforbidis the barrage of illegal, anti-com-petitive practices that Microsoft uses todestroy its rivals and to avoid competition."Gates rejected this view and explained thatMicrosoft's success came from its innova-tive, superior, and low-cost software thatbenefited the consumer.

aftngaxi Sates U. (n ]2In June 1998, Microsoft gained a partial vic-tory when a federal judge overruled the ear-lier court order banning the company frombundling Explorer with Windows. Even so,the federal and state governments decided to

go on with their antitrust lawsuits, alleging thatMicrosoft was illegally attempting to preserve itsWindows monopoly. The trial began in October 1998before a federal judge, Thomas Penfield Jackson.

The federal and state governments presented testimo-ny and other evidence (including hundreds ofMicrosoft e-mail messages). They tried to prove thatMicrosoft had acted unfairly to suppress the develop-ment of competing browser technology that threat-ened its Windows monopoly. The governmentplaintiffs accused Microsoft of:

giving Explorer away to drive Netscape out ofthe browser market.

threatening to cancel the licensing of Windowsto computer makers unless they agreed toinstall Explorer.

pressuring computer chip-maker Intel not todevelop its own competing browser.

threatening to cancel new Macintosh versionsof Microsoft Office software unless Appleinstalled Explorer in the Mac as its defaultbrowser.

making it technically difficult for consumerswith Windows computers to completely deleteExplorer or change to another browser.

attempting to make the Sun Microsystems Javaprograming language, which facilitates brows-er technology, dependent on Windows.

ro,soft

12

Throughout the trial, Microsoft maintained that itssole purpose in bundling Explorer with Windows wasto make it easier, more convenient, and less costly forconsumers to use a computer. After all, Microsoftattorneys reminded the court, the overriding intent ofthe Sherman Act is to protect consumers, not compet-ing companies. When America Online, the nation'slargest Internet service provider, bought Netscape dur-ing the trial, Microsoft offered this as proof that com-petition was still strong in the computer softwareindustry.

On November 5, 1999, Judge Jackson issued"Findings of Fact" in the case. To the surprise of many,his 207-page list of findings sided almost totally withthe government. He found that Microsoft was a"predatory monopoly," using unfair tactics againstrival companies to crush competition. This ultimatelydenied consumers both choice and software that wasnever developed because of Microsoft's actions topreserve its monopoly.

At the beginning of the year 2000, the lawsuit againstMicrosoft was far from over. Judge Jackson still had todecide if the facts supported the government's con-tention that Microsoft violated the Sherman AntitrustAct. If so, as appears likely, the judge must then decidewhat "remedies" to impose on the world's biggestsoftware maker to correct its illegal behavior. Barringa negotiated settlement out of court, Microsoft willprobably appeal Judge Jackson's ruling all the way tothe U.S. Supreme Court.

Evolving technology, which Microsoft does notmonopolize, is rapidly transforming desktop comput-ers into wireless, online, hand-held devices. Microsoftmay have to pay a price for its past actions,while it tries to keep up with fast-moving changes intechnology.

RIT I> I se-us s 4,011 63Bdi ZOGITID,C3

1. According to the government, why did Microsoftattempt to control the Internet browser market?What was Microsoft's position on this issue?

2. Judge Jackson found that Microsoft was a "preda-tory monopoly." What does this mean? What evi-dence did the judge accept to reach this finding?

3. Following the release of Judge Jackson's"Findings of Fact," Bill Gates asserted that"Microsoft's innovations and behavior were com-pletely fair and brought tremendous benefit to mil-lions of consumers." Do you agree or disagreewith him? Why?

4. What are the editorial cartoons saying on pages 9and 10? Do you agree? Explain.

107 F u rt1 e r abariCGates, Bill. The Road Ahead. New York: Viking,1995.

Jackson, Thomas Penfield. United States ofAmerica v.Microsoft Corporation et al. Findings of Fact. UnitedStates District Court for the District of Columbia. 5Nov. 1999. Available http://usvms.gpo.gov

(Continued on next page)

WebSideStory, an intemet trends analysis company,has declared the browser war over. In a study ofover 30 million internet users concluded in August1999, WebSideStory found that 72 percent ofInternet users used Microsoft's Internet Explorer,compared to 26 percent using Netscape's Navigator,and 2 percent using other browsers. As recently as1996, nine companies competed in a $200 millionbrowser market. By 1999, the market was dominat-ed by Microsoft and Netscape, who offered theirbrowsers to consumers free of charge.

gg 13

glEraMICCO atatii:00 e- °soft: 4iD O G2

In antitrust cases, courts impose what are called"remedies" to correct illegal corporate behavior and torestore competition. This activity asks small groups toconsider the following possible remedies if the courtsdecide that Microsoft violated the Sherman AntitrustAct. Each group may adopt one remedy, a combina-tion of them, or one of its own. The groups should theneach prepare reasons and arguments for its remedy topresent to the rest of the class.

erneNi 14

Possible Remedies

1. Warn Microsoft not to engage in certain unfaircompetitive practices. Under this remedy, thecompany would be able to continue business asusual. Microsoft would most likely interpret thisremedy as an admission by the government thatthe company is really not a "predatory monopoly."Others who view Microsoft more negativelywould probably view this remedy as a mere "slapon the wrist."

2. Impose a huge fine. Fines are often used to pun-ish corporate misbehavior and to deter anti-com-petitive practices. But would such a remedy matterthat much to this wealthy corporation?

3. Require a long probation period with a detailedcode of conduct supervised by a team of gov-ernment attorneys and computer experts. This

would be a massive intrusion by the governmentinto the realm of private free enterprise. Given thefacts in this case, however, such an intrusion maybe necessary to make sure Microsoft does not con-tinue to use its monopoly power to eliminate com-petition.

4. Force Microsoft to make its secret Windowssoftware code available to other companies.This would enable Microsoft's competitors to pro-duce new and perhaps better Web browsers, wordprocessors, and other programs that run withWindows. Microsoft would undoubtedly viewthis remedy as theft of its corporate property.

5. Split Microsoft into two or more competingcompanies. Each could develop its own version ofWindows or each new company could focus onone element of the old company such as Windows,Explorer, or office software. Considered the"death penalty" of antitrust remedies, this optionwould destroy the Microsoft monopoly to restorecompetition in the software industry. But Gatescontinually points out that rapid changes in tech-nology already make it impossible for any onecompany to control the software industry.

Be the First to Know-loin CRF's UstseryCRF sends out periodic announcements about new publications,programs, trainings, and lessons. Don't miss out. E-mail us atandrew®crf-usa.org. On the subject line, write CRF Listserv. In themessage, put your name, school, subject you teach, state, and e-mail

address.

If you've changed your e-mail address, please notify us.

14

LEI

CHALLENGE

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION-v

IS5 czrffpJg

CRF's New Challenge SeriesViolence, information, diversitythree critical challenges facing our nation. In order to help high school students understand andevaluate these controversial topics, Constitutional Rights Foundation presents the Challenge Series.

The Challenge of Violence The Challenge of Information The Challenge of Diversity

Made possible by a generous grant from the W.M. Keck Foundation of Los Angeles, these supplemental materials feature bal-anced readings, guided discussions, and interactive lessons designed to address key challenges to our democracy.

The Challenge of ViolenceChallenge your students to grapplewith one of America's most vexingproblemsviolence.

The Challenge of Violence helpsstudents:

Place theproblem ofviolence inits historicalcontext.

Examinehow law andpublic poli-cy seek toaddress theproblem ofviolence.

Take action against violence intheir own lives and in their com-munities.

Grades 9-12, 72 pages and a separateteacher's guide

Each volume in the Challenge Series isfully illustrated with photos and edito-rial cartoons. Ideal for governmentand civics, 20th-century U.S. history,contemporary problems, and law-related courses.

All Challenge Series Teacher's Guidesinclude:

Complete lesson procedures andreproducible handouts for eachstudent reading.

Directed discussions, role plays,simulations, and critical-thinkingexercises.

Methods for guiding "civil con-versations,"structured discussionson provocative issues.

The Challenge of InformationHow do you teach your students tothink critically about the informationand disinformationthat floods today'snewsstands, airwaves, and the Internet?

The Challenge of Information helpsstudents:

Explore constitutional issues deal-ing with the media and a free press.

Examine the tension between afree and responsible press.

Delve into the conflict betweenfreedom of the press and the rightto a fair trial.

Apply critical-thinking skillsto myths,rumors, con-spiracies andmore.

Evaluate cen-sorship andthe Internet.

HPalO

z

O

Includes "Countdown to Doomsday."Students play investigative reporterswho must use the Internet to separatefact from fiction.

Grades 9-12, 72 pages and a separateteacher's guide

15

The Challenge of DiversityThe newest in CRF's ChallengeSeries, The Challenge of Diversityprovides students with an in-depthlook at diversity in America's past,present, and future.

New! Nationalstandards forU.S. historyand dvics arelinked to eachlesson.

This 72-pagesupplementarytext:

Traces thedevelop-ment of equal protection fromslavery and the Constitution tothe Civil War amendments.

Tells the story of America's immi-grants.

Follows the civil rights movementof the 1950s and '60s from thestreets to the courts to Congress.

Explores current issues of diversi-tyaffirmative action, bilingualeducation, multiculturalism,reparations, hate crimes, andmore.

Provides students with methodsto promote diversity in their ownschool and community.

Grades 9-12, 72 pages and a separateteacher's guide

THE<44

HALLENGE

OFtr)

Challenge Series Sample Lessons Available!!!

Check them out before you buy. Download sample lessons of each of the ChallengeSeries in PDF format from our web site at www.crf.usa.org/marketing/catalog.htmi

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Foogse eiActive Citizenship Today Of Codes & Crowns

(ACT)

Is service a necessary component ofyour curriculum? Want to link servicewith classroom work?

The Active Citizenship Today FieldGuide is a user-friendly student hand-book full of tips, methods, and profilesdesigned to help students:

Learn about their own commu-nitypast, present, and future.

Identify school or communityproblems.

Learn about community policy-making in local government, non-profits, business, and the media.

Examine options for working on acommunity problem.

Plan, implement and evaluate aproject to address a school orcommunity problem..

The ActiveCitizenship TodayField Guide fitsperfectly into anyU.S. government,contemporaryAmerican prob-lems, or commu-nity servicecourse.

Middle- and High-School editions,grades 5-12

And don't forget! The ACTImplementation Guide: a usefulhandbook for educators interested instartingand continuinga service-learning program.

ACT publications are produced anddeveloped jointly by ConstitutionalRights Foundation and Close UpFoundation.

Funding for this program was madepossible through a generous grantfrom the DeWitt Wallace-Reader'sDigest Fund.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

The Development of Law

Why do we need laws? Where do theycome from?

Of Codes & Crowns helps studentsexamine the development of law fromprehistoric times through RenaissanceItaly. Ideal for infusing law-related edu-cation into world history and westerncivilization cours-es. Studentsexplore legalconcepts such asthe origin ofrules, the devel-opment of thejury system, andlimits of authorityand relate themto their own lives.

Of Codes & Crowns presents five com-plete units:

In the Beginning uncovers the ori-gins of and need for rules in prehis-toric cultures.

Hammurabi's Treasures exploresthe law of retribution and anancient set of laws.

Blood Feud discusses the Greektribunal system and the story ofOrestes.

Merry Old England examines theevolution of the jury system.

Renaissance Italy uses the story ofGalileo to explore the limits andabuse of authority..

A separate teacher's guide contains thecomplete student text, discussionquestions, and interactive lessons.

Youth and Police

How do your stu-dents feel aboutthe police? Dothey know theirrights? Do youhave law- enforce-ment officers oncampus?

Youth and Policeis the perfect wayto educate stu-dents about police and law enforce-ment. This multi-dimensionalcurriculum:

Promotes positive police-commu-nity relations.

Helps students think criticallyabout use of force, laws of searchand arrest, the Miranda rule, andmore.

Brings youth and police togetherto address police-community rela-tions and neighborhood safetywith a service-learning project.

Youth and Police features a adaptationof CRF's well-known Police Patrol simu-lation.

Grades 6-12

See Youth and Police training oppor-tunity on next page.

RESOURCES AND MATERIALS PRICE UST

The Challenge of Violence Student EditionThe Challenge of Violence Teacher's Guide

The Challenge of Information Student EditionThe Challenge of Information Teacher's Guide

The Challenge of Diversity Student EditionThe Challenge of Diversity Teachers Guide

Active Citizenship Today Field GuideActive Citizenship Today Implementation Guide

Of Codes and Crown Student EditionOf Codes and Crown Teacher's Guide

Youth and Police 16

$9.95$8.95

$9.95$8.95

$9.95$8.95

$12.95$4.95

$7.95$16.95

$16.95

Order online at viivArs.af-esa.org

To purchase by Visa or MasterCardcall 1-804488-4273

To purchase by check or purchaseorder, please mail orders to:CONSTITUTIONAL.RIGHTS FOUNDATION

Publication Orders Dept.601 South lOngsley Dr.Los Angeles, CA 90005

Add $5.50 Shipping/HandlingCalif. residents add 8.25% sales tax

I

PG30@Glaki _q

CRF Summer Law Camp

Two sessions of CRF's Summer LawCamp will take place on the UCLAcampus from July 16 to July 22, 2000and from July 30 to August 5, 2000.Students will participate in mock trialworkshops, expand their understand-ing of the legal system, build researchskills, work with law professors, attor-neys, and experienced group leaders,and learn about life on a college cam-pus. For more information on sendingstudents to CRF's Summer Law Camp,contact Katie Moore via e-mail(katie@crf-usa.org) or call (213) 316-2109

,aimator-cmo_

$$$ for Service LearningProjectsCRF 's Maurice R. Robinson Mini-Grants program awards grants of$100-$1000 as seed money to teacher-student teams and community organi-zations for service-learning projects.This year's application deadline isOctober 9, 2000. For a complete set ofguidelines and an application visit ourweb site (www.crf-usa.org), or callour office at (213) 487-5590 to requestan application package.

Constitutional Rights Foundation is a non-profit, non-parti-san citizenship education organization with programs andpublications on law, government, civic participation, andservice learning. Since 1962, CRF has used education toaddress some of America's most serious youth-relatedproblems: apathy, alienation, and lack of commitment tothe values essential to our democratic way of life.

.-Through a variety of civic-education programs developedby CRF staff, young people prepare for effective citizenshipand learn the vital role they can play in our society.Empowered with knowledge and skills, our youth can inter-act successfully with our political, legal, and economic sys-tems. CRF is dedicated to assuring our country's future byinvesting in our youth today.

Interested in Attending aYouth and Police Training?Call CRF's Training Hotline at(213) 316-2114 and leave your name,phone #, and specify that you wish toattend the Youth and Police Training.We'll contact you with details.

L No u© CCMTMCV Ug,For more information about CRF programs and curriculummaterials, please contact our office at (213) 487-5590; fax(213) 386-0459; e-mail us at crfauf-usa.org, or visit CRF'sweb site at www.crf-usa.org.

raM VOU of ©UE PA&OLONI©

Receive CRF's free publications: Bill of Rights in Action,Sports & the Law, and Network. Call 1-800-488-4CRF, e-mail us at crf@crf-usa.org, or sign up on our web site atwww.crf-usa.org.

LET US HEAR FROM YOU We welcome your comments on this and recommendations for themes for future issues.

YES, BRIA is a valuable resource and I would liketo give you my opinion on it.

_YES, I want to continue receiving BRIA. Myaddress has changed as indicated below.

_YES, my colleague is interested in BRIA. Pleasefind below the details on how to contact him/her.

Please Print.

NAME

TITLE

SPECIALIZATION

SCHOOL NAME

ADDRESS

CITY STATE__ZIP

TELEPHONE

E-MAIL

I'd like to find out more about

CRF's Law-related Education

Programs

CRE's Civic-ParticipationPrograms

History Day in California

California State Mock Trial

Competition

CRF's Publications and Materials;please send me a free CRFMaterials Catalog.

Return to: Publications Dept.CRF601 S. Kingsley DriveLos Angeles, CA 90005

Fax to: (213) 386-0459 17

Let us know your opinion of BRIA.

Please evaluate the series using the following scale(5 Excellent, 1 Poor)

1. Topic

2. Content3. Questions4. Activities

5. Usefulness

5 4

5 45 45 4

5 4

3 2 1

3 2 1

3 2 1

3 2 1

3 2 1

Comments/Suggestions

For more details about publications and materialsavailable from CRF. call (800)488-4CRF or visit our website at wwescr&usaorg.

16.2

. r .introduce Civics Through Sports!

. .J.

"cf- e;;C VVI re . . , . . . . 4. 2% . . . 2. .

A series of fully prepared interactive classroom lesson plans for teachers. All lessons

include detailed teacher instructions, background information, and student handouts.

Mock Arbitration Conflict Resolution in MajorLeague Baseball is a mock arbitration of a player's salary.Students role play team attorneys, players' representatives,and arbitrators.

Conflict Management in Sports and on the Streetfocuses on dealing with conflicts on and off the field.Students analyze conflicts in sports and everyday life.

Teamwork is a mock NBA draft. Students role play teamowners dealing with free agency, salary caps, and the draft.

Broadcast Wows is a mock sports news conference andbroadcast. Students role play reporters and sports figures.Students examine issues related to the production of televi-sion sports programming.

People v. Winston is a mock trial case of a coach accusedof assaulting a referee. Students role play attorneys, wit-nesses, jelly members, and court personnel.

e".)c's

t'.!:V'n \ w sf. . ...X .

Sports & the Law Lesson Plans (Order #37100CBR)

Price includes shipping/handling.CA residents please add 8.25% sales tax.

To purchase by check or purchase order, please mail orders to:CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION, PublicationOrders Dept., 601 S. Kingsley Dr., Los Angeles, CA 90005

TO ORDER BY CREDIT CARD: 1-800-488-4CRF

+.!

CONS f II 11 UTIONAL RIGHTS 'FOUNDATION601 South Kingsley DriveLos Angeles, CA 90005

(213)487-5590 Fax (213) 386-0459www.crf-usa.org

ElINP@RMRT7 R9OVII©lgRomeo do otwa discoed tools touvolleiter.

If the recipient is no longeravailable, please return the addresslabel to us and we will remove theperson from our mailing list.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

18

Non Profit Org.U.S. Postage

PAID

Constitutional RightsFoundation

Los Angeles, CAPermit #25777

Officers: Marjorie S. Steinberg, President; Haley J. Fromholz, Immediate Past-President; Publications Committee: Jerome C. Byrne, Chairperson; Gerald

Chaleff, Lee S. Edmond, Patrick J. McDonough, Michael W. Monk, Hon. Margaret M. Morrow, Peggy Saferstein, Deborah S. Saxe, Marvin Sears, LoisThompson, Carlton Varner. Staff: Todd Clark, Executive Director; Marshall L. Croddy, Director of Program and Materials Development; Carlton Martz,Writer; Bill Hayes, Editor, Andrew Costly, Production Manager, Deborah S. Saxe, CRF BoarrlReviewer.

ill

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OEM

National Library of Education (NLE)

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

NOTICE

Reproduction Basis

IC

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release(Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing all

or classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission to'reproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, may

be reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release form

(either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").

EFF-089 (3/2000)