A prep course for the month-long World Cup soccer tournament, a worldwide pheno

 , included Stars of David inset with dollar signs outraging Jewish students and

 highlighting ethnic divisions on the multicultural campus . `` This university 

absolutely will not tolerate expressions of hate , '' Corrigan said . `` Intoler

ance and prejudice are abhorrent to our deepest values as individuals and as a c

ommunity . '' Some black students fought to keep the mural , twice rescuing it f

rom campus paint crews before it was finally sanded off the wall of the student 

union . Defending the depiction of the assassinated leader , members of the Pan 

African Student Union said the symbols were not anti-Jewish but a reflection of 

Malcolm 's anti-Zionist views . `` Our intentions were not to hurt anyone , '' s

aid Troy Nkrumah , a student who is coordinator of the Pan African Student Union

 . `` All art is open to interpretation . '' But Jewish students and community m

embers disagreed . `` This is a state-funded university , and state funds should

 not be used to portray hateful images , '' said Eloise Magenheim , a recent gra

duate who stood with a protest sign near the site of the mural . Removal of the 

mural raised the thorny question of whether racist or bigoted statements are pro

tected under the First Amendment right of free speech . But legal experts and sc

holars echoed the view of university officials that , in this case , the constit

utional right to free expression did not apply because the mural was commissione

d and paid for by the university . ( Optional add end ) `` This is not a situati

on where university officials went into an artist 's studio and painted over his

 work , '' said Albert Elsen , a professor of art law and art history at Stanfor

d University . Instead , Thomas Grey , a Stanford professor of constitutional la

w , likened it to `` hiring someone to write a brochure about the university and

 then editing what was said . `` You might not like the fact that they edited yo

ur message , but they have the legal right to decide what picture of the univers

ity they want to project . There 's no First Amendment issue there . '' Lawyers 

for the American Civil Liberties Union seconded that legal interpretation , but 

Northern California director Dorothy Ehrlich said she was disturbed by the unive

rsity 's conduct . `` This controversy has exposed a great deal of tension and i

ntolerance on campus , and it seems to me that simply painting over the offendin

g remarks in the dead of night is not good enough , '' Ehrlich said . `` It seem

s the lesson given here ( by the university ) is that the way to avoid controver

sy is to not allow any provocative expression . ''

 SAN FRANCISCO The California Supreme Court , ruling for the first time in an ab

ortion protest case , held Thursday that demonstrators can be barred from a publ

ic sidewalk in front of an abortion clinic to protect patient safety . The 6-1 d

ecision helps assure California 's abortion clinics of legal protection if picke

ts threaten patients ' emotional health , a protection that could be extended to

 targets of other kinds of political demonstrations as well . `` Emotionally jar

ring confrontations with anti-abortion pickets or sidewalk ` counselors ' may po

se serious health risks , '' Justice Armand Arabian wrote for the majority . It 

was the second setback for abortion protesters Thursday . President Clinton sign

ed legislation making it a federal crime to block the entrance to an abortion cl

inic or attack those entering it . Two anti-abortion groups immediately filed a 

lawsuit to nullify the law . The California ruling marked the first time the sta

te 's Supreme Court has decided an abortion case since conservatives gained a ma

jority in 1987 . The U.S. Supreme Court has a similar case pending . Justice Joy

ce L. Kennard , the state court 's only woman and one of its more liberal member

s , dissented , contending that the buffer zone approved by the court was broade

r than that endorsed by appellate courts . In grappling with the case , the stat

e court called the collision between competing constitutional interests `` the m

ost difficult and divisive subject of our day '' and acknowledged that its rulin

g would be controversial . But the court majority also called its decision `` ma

nifestly reasonable and conducive to the fostering of greater harmony in the com

munity . '' The ruling came in the approval of an injunction that forced antiabo

rtion pickets to remain across a busy , four-lane avenue from a Planned Parentho

od clinic in Vallejo , a Solano County city east of San Francisco . The pickets 

had tried to dissuade women entering the clinic from having abortions . They gav

e them anti-abortion literature , shoving it into car windows as patients drove 

in , and on at least two occasions tossed them plastic replicas of fetuses . `` 

The state 's responsibility for the health and safety of women seeking medical s

ervices , including abortions , extends beyond the operating room , '' Arabian w

rote . `` Physical or emotional intimidation of patients outside the doctor 's o

ffice may significantly affect their course of treatment once they are inside . 

'' Although the case involved abortion , the decision has ramifications for othe

r demonstrations that limit the `` rights of private citizens to conduct their l

awful business without pain or hindrance , '' wrote Justice Marvin Baxter , in a

 separate concurring opinion joined by Justice Ronald George . Baxter said the k

inds of confrontational actions taken by the abortion picketers `` crossed the l

ine from protected expression to unprotected interference with the lawful activi

ties of other citizens . '' ( Optional add end ) John R. Streett , an attorney f

or Solano Citizens for Life , which appealed the case to the high court , noted 

that the ruling could also limit the ability of unions to picket . In the aborti

on context , he said , the decision will `` make it very easy '' for clinics to 

get injunctions to stop any protests on their sidewalks . `` Basically all they 

have to allege is , ` Our patients are upset by this , they don't like it , they

 are crying , we feel they are traumatized , ' ' ' Streett said . `` That is not

 going to be much of a standard at all . '' But attorneys for Planned Parenthood

 said courts still will have freedom to shape injunctions according to the facts

 of the case , including the configuration of the clinic and its proximity to pr

otesters . The court ruling simply `` means that patients at medical clinics hav

e the right to be free of abuse , harassment and assault , '' said Planned Paren

thood attorney Stephen Kostka . Christine Williams , former director of Solano C

itizens for Life , complained that the court 's decision will make it `` extreme

ly difficult '' for anti-abortion groups to give abortion patients `` one last c

hance to change their minds . '' Pickets have been congregating weekly across th

e street from the Planned Parenthood clinic since a Solano County Superior Court

 issued the permanent injunction in August 1991 , she said . But the protesters 

cannot be heard by patients through the din of traffic , she said , and their nu

mbers have dropped because `` people are very discouraged by the lack of effecti

veness . '' Abortion-rights advocates have been buoyed by recent victories . In 

January , the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that abortion clinics can sue

 protesters for damage under a federal racketeering law . `` This seems to be pa

rt of a big wall that is coming down , '' said Anna Runkle , spokeswoman for Pla

nned Parenthood , Shasta-Diablo , which runs the Vallejo clinic . `` It seems to

 be a landslide . The public and the law are finally saying enough is enough . '

' In her dissent , Kennard said the injunction banishing the protesters to the o

pposite side of the street violated their First Amendment rights to express thei

r views . Although other appellate courts cited by the majority approved of buff

er zones , Kennard said , they also allowed a limited number of protesters withi

n them or drew them narrowly enough to permit protesters to communicate with pat

ients .

 WASHINGTON The Energy Department has no permanent solution for disposing of 50 

tons of radioactive plutonium waste from the Cold War weapons program , and may 

have to continue using temporary storage facilities for as long as 20 years , En

ergy officials told Congress Thursday . As an interim solution , the department 

is considering the possibility of storing some of the waste in abandoned militar

y bases around the country , officials said in a report released earlier this we

ek . The disposal issue is one of the thorniest facing the department . Plutoniu

m poses `` significant dangers to national and international security '' because

 of the possibility that it could fall into the wrong hands and be fashioned int

o a nuclear bomb , Energy Under Secretary Charles Curtis said in testimony befor

e the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee . Only about 10 pounds of pl

utonium is needed to build a bomb . Of the estimated 100 tons of weapons grade p

lutonium in the United States , only half will be retained by the federal govern

ment for use in nuclear weapons . No plans have yet been devised for disposing o

f the remainder . Sen. J. Bennett Johnston , D-La. , committee chairman , said t

hat while the problem is a serious one for both the United States and Russia whi

ch possess the bulk of the world 's plutonium the pace of the search for a solut

ion has been `` torpid at best . '' In addition to solving the plutonium disposa

l problem , the Energy Department also must decide what to do about the millions

 of pounds of radioactive waste from other sources that is being stored in 29 te

mporary sites around the nation . Many of the containers are rusting and threate

ning to release radioactivity . Inspection teams are now attempting to assess th

e extent of the danger , an Energy spokesman said Thursday . By contrast , most 

of the surplus plutonium is held at relatively few sites , the largest of which 

is the department 's Pantex plant near Amarillo , Texas , which has the job of d

ismantling nuclear weapons . About 6,000 plutonium pits are contained in so-call

ed igloos on Pantex land . The proposal to store the waste at military installat

ions appears to be the result of protests from Texas authorities over the storag

e of the plutonium waste at Pantex . ( Optional add end ) Energy Secretary Hazel

 O' Leary has promised Texas officials to limit the storage there , raising the 

problem of where to put the material . Efforts to find a permanent storage site 

have run into a number of technical and environmental roadblocks . A federally a

ppointed panel led by Stanford University Professor Wolfgang Panofsky suggested 

that the plutonium could be used in commercial reactors to make electricity or b

e converted into glass logs in a process called vitrification . But Johnston rai

sed concerns that the only U.S. reactors capable of burning the plutonium are sc

heduled to be closed . It would take another decade to build a new reactor for t

he job , Panofsky said .

 WASHINGTON The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee announced Thursday a s

urprising alliance with a powerful insurance company trade group to endorse legi

slation curtailing insurers ' 49-year special exemption from federal antitrust l

aws . After two years of negotiations , the American Insurance Association , has

 decided to back reform , `` the first breach in the wall of strident opposition

 '' from the industry , said Rep. Jack Brooks , D-Texas . The group 's membershi

p includes some of the giant companies of the industry , such as Aetna , Travele

rs , Cigna , Hartford and Kemper , active in selling property and casualty cover

age . Under Brooks ' bill , insurers will be allowed to continue sharing informa

tion on actual historical losses . But , three years after passage , they would 

no longer be allowed to engage in `` trending , '' or sharing projections of fut

ure losses from such things as theft , fire , floods and earthquakes . This shar

ed information now has an important impact on setting rates . If Congress approv

es the bill , the result would be `` downward pressure on prices and more consum

er choice , '' predicted Mark Silbergeld , Washington director for Consumers Uni

on , which helped Brooks and the AIA reach their agreement . Brooks has twice mo

ved a similar bill through his Judiciary Committee in prior congresses , but was

 unable to get a vote in the full House because of united insurance industry opp

osition . The task is still difficult , but he has for the first time enlisted a

n important segment of the insurance business to be his ally instead of his enem

y . The AIA hopes that passage of the Brooks bill would defuse some of the consu

mer anger against the insurance industry and make it possible to pass other legi

slation eagerly sought by insurers . Removing the special antitrust treatment ``

 will restore some consumer confidence that the rates out there are fair , '' sa

id David Pratt , the AIA 's senior vice president for federal affairs . `` It is

 very important for us to be a more normal industry from the antitrust standpoin

t and this can create a more positive climate as we deal with other issues , '' 

he said . These other concerns , which the insurance industry is pushing for sep

arately , include proposals to : Provide a settlement system for the barrage of 

lawsuits under the federal Superfund , where a company hit with a cleanup sues t

he insurance carrier ; Limit lawsuits for product liability ; Create a federal r

einsurance fund to ease the risks of providing coverage for natural disasters su

ch as earthquakes , floods , fires and hurricanes . But the rest of the industry

 doesn't share the AIA 's belief that giving away the antitrust privilege will l

ead to victory on other issues . `` Some regional companies could go out of busi

ness , and it could do a lot of damage to consumers , '' said Julie Rochman , vi

ce president of the Alliance of American Insurers , whose membership includes ma

ny medium and smaller firms that depend on the pooled information . ( Optional a

dd end ) The Brooks bill is `` an effort by a very small segment of the industry

 to appease opponents of the industry in Congress and some vocal critics on the 

outside , '' said Jack Ramirez , executive vice president and chief operating of

ficer of the National Assn. of Independent Insurers . `` No amount of tinkering 

with a bad bill is going to make it any better , '' he said . The major life ins

urance trade group also opposes any change in the status quo , which has existed

 since 1945 , when the insurance industry persuaded Congress to pass the McCarra

n-Ferguson Act , which removed the federal government from insurance regulation 

. Each of the 50 states oversees insurers operating within its borders . `` Ther

e is no need to fix a system that isn't broken , '' said Gene Grabowski , a spok

esman for the American Council of Life Insurance . `` The state governments have

 done a fine job . But the Brooks bill would allow the federal government , thro

ugh the attorney general and the Federal Trade Commission , to get involved . ''

 WASHINGTON President Clinton signed legislation Thursday barring abortion clini

c blockades and harassment a move that extended a recent string of victories for

 abortion-rights groups but brought a pair of immediate legal challenges from th

eir foes . As Clinton hailed the law as a blow against `` extremism and vigilant

ism , '' two anti-abortion groups filed lawsuits that could lead to court clarif

ication of the murky and hotly disputed boundary between free-speech and abortio

n-rights laws . The groups , the American Center for Law and Justice and the Ame

rican Life League , sought injunctions to block the new statute , which they sai

d will curtail their right to protest more than that of any other group . Even a

s they went to court , however , abortion foes acknowledged that the law , which

 becomes effective immediately , had dealt them a severe setback . While they vo

wed to continue protests , officials of some anti-abortion groups said they fear

ed that the stiff sanctions which include fines of up to $ 250,000 and prison te

rms of six months to life could curtail their ability to find volunteers to help

 close down clinics . Some openly lamented the reversals suffered by a movement 

that dominated the abortion debate for much of the past decade . `` Mr. Clinton 

eroded in one year pro-life gains that took us 20 years of back-breaking work , 

'' said the Rev. Pat Mahoney , a national leader of Operation Rescue . `` Clearl

y , this has been a horrible year for the pro-life movement . '' In addition to 

the clinic-access law , the anti-abortion rights groups have recently been disap

pointed by an agreement that will allow U.S. tests of the abortion-pill RU 486 a

nd by million-dollar judgments against protesters who damaged abortion clinics .

 The Supreme Court also ruled this year that federal prosecutors may use the tou

gh anti-racketeering statute in some circumstances against protesters who sought

 to close down clinics . And last year the Clinton administration lifted a order

 prohibiting abortion counseling in federally-funded clinics . Surrounded by abo

rtion-rights advocates at a White House ceremony , Clinton said , `` We cannot w

e must not continue to allow the attacks , the incidents of arson , the campaign

s of intimidation upon law-abiding citizens that has given rise to this law . ''

 But he insisted that the bill `` is not a strike against the First Amendment . 

Far from it . It insures that all citizens have the opportunity to exercise all 

their constitutional rights , including their privacy rights . '' Some advocates

 say more than 1,000 violent incidents have occurred at clinics since 1977 , inc

luding 81 cases of arson , 36 bombings , 84 assaults , two kidnappings , and the

 fatal shooting of Florida abortionist Dr. David Gunn . That killing helped galv

anize sentiment against abortion-clinic violence , changing the political balanc

e in Congress sufficiently to deliver victory for a proposal that two years ago 

died in committee . The bill passed by 241-174 vote margin in the House , and by

 a 69 to 30 margin in the Senate . ( Optional add end ) `` We decry violence all

 the time this was a move to stop it , '' said Sen. Barbara Boxer , D-Calif. , w

ho helped Sen. Edward M. Kennedy , D-Mass. , lead the effort for the bill in the

 Senate . The bill imposes its penalties on anyone who uses force , threats or `

` physical obstruction '' to any person using an abortion clinic or reproductive

-health service . The bill 's also states , however , that no provision of it ma

y interfere with free speech rights . Abortion foes argue that since that it imp

oses much harsher penalties than the one-night jail terms and $ 100 fines that a

re typical for protest sit-ins and blockades , the law is effectively depriving 

them of a tactic that other protesters have long used .

 President Clinton , unabashedly changing course , renewed China 's favorable tr

ade status Thursday and abandoned its use as a weapon for pressuring Beijing on 

human rights improvement . In a mild sanction , Clinton said the United States w

ould ban the import of munitions , mainly ammunition and cheap , automatic rifle

s that have poured into the country , becoming a mass-market assault weapon . Th

e president 's decisions directly contradicted a position staked out last year ,

 when he demanded `` overall , significant progress '' in China 's human rights 

record as a condition for renewing its most-favored-nation trade status . He ack

nowledged Thursday that , despite some strides , serious human rights abuses con

tinue in China . While the renewal of MFN was expected , Clinton 's decision to 

`` de-link '' trade privleges and human rights was debated as late as Wednesday 

night among administration officials . `` We have reached the end of the usefuln

ess of that policy , '' Clinton said at a White House briefing . The president i

nsisted that the United States could do more to encourage human rights progress 

by expanding trade and improving overall U.S.-Chinese relations . The policy shi

ft , in keeping with Clinton 's focus on economics in foreign affairs , was chee

red by business leaders , Republicans and moderate Democrats as practical and pr

udent . But it brought a furious reaction from human rights activists and member

s of Congress who have long advocated the use of trade sanctions to bring pressu

re on China not to repress its citizens . Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitch

ell , D-Maine and Rep. Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , said they would introduce legis

lation to impose trade sanctions . `` It will confirm for the Chinese Communist 

regime the success of its policy of repression on human rights and manipulation 

on trade , '' Mitchell said of Clinton 's action . Mitchell promised to introduc

e legislation following the Memorial Day congressional recess . In a stinging re

buke , AFL-CIO President Lane Kirkland said Clinton 's decision `` sends a clear

 message to the world : No matter what America says about democracy and human ri

ghts , in the final analysis profits , not people , matter most . '' But some in

fluential Democrats , including Sen . Bill Bradley of New Jersey and Rep. Lee Ha

milton of Indiana , who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee , had urged t

he president to drop the linkage between trade and human rights . Clinton was un

der heavy pressure by U.S. companies to renew MFN status with China , which allo

ws Chinese goods into the United States under low tariffs . Business executives 

feared that revocation would trigger a trade war , cutting U.S. companies and in

vestors out of the world 's fastest-growing market . U.S. businesses export $ 8 

billion in goods to China , underwriting more than 150,000 jobs in the United St