AMNA NAWAZ: Good evening.
I'm Amna Nawaz. Judy
Woodruff is away.
On the "NewsHour" tonight:
The surge continues. The
risks of reopening grow,
as cases of COVID-19
spike across the country and
the Centers for Disease Control
faces scrutiny for its pandemic
response.
Then: one-on-one. Senator Bernie
Sanders on the race for the
White House and former Vice
President Biden's new plan
to tackle climate change.
Plus: Rethinking College.
The future of higher
education remains in
doubt for many community
college students
burdened by COVID-19 and
structural inequality.
DERIONNE POLLARD, President,
Montgomery College: Many of them
live very fragile lives, and
they're oftentimes one
paycheck away from disaster.
AMNA NAWAZ: All that and more
on tonight's "PBS NewsHour."
(BREAK)
AMNA NAWAZ: The relentless rise
of COVID-19 cases has dominated
another day in the summer
of 2020. More states are setting
records for infections and
deaths, and more are moving
to curb activities again.
Lisa Desjardins reports
on the day's developments.
LISA DESJARDINS: In Florida,
the deadliest day yet from the
coronavirus, with 132 deaths,
a 10 percent increase
from its previous record.
Republican Governor Ron DeSantis
has defended reopening, but,
today, he sounded a somber
note.
GOV. RON DESANTIS (R-FL): People
are apprehensive. People are
hurting. This virus has affected
every Floridian's life
in one way or another.
LISA DESJARDINS: Florida is part
of a trio of high-population
hot spots, along with California
and Texas. Those three states
reported 30,000 new virus cases
yesterday alone, this as local
leaders across the
country are rethinking
their moves to reopen.
Officials outside Houston in
Fort Bend County, Texas, have
decided school this fall will
open with online learning only.
DR. JACQUELYN JOHNSON
MINTER, Director, Fort
Bend County, Texas,
Health and Human Services:
We cannot tell this virus
what we will and will not do.
The virus will teach us what
is safe and what
is prudent to do.
LISA DESJARDINS: In California,
the same decision with even more
impact. Officials in Los Angeles
and San Diego announced
classrooms will stay
closed, online learning
only, when school
starts. That affects more
than 800,000 students.
Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti:
ERIC GARCETTI (D), Mayor of
Los Angeles: We have never
had as many people infected or
infectious. We have never had
as many recorded positive cases
each day. And we have never
had as many people in
the hospital as there
are tonight, as I speak
to you, in Los Angeles.
LISA DESJARDINS:
But there is divide.
Outside of Los Angeles,
protesters for and
against gathered as the
Orange County School
Board recommended that
classrooms reopen next
month without masks
or social distancing.
On the opposite coast, the
opposite direction. The
city of Philadelphia took
a dramatic preventative
step today. Mayor Jim Kenney
announced all large public
events in the city are canceled
through February of next year.
JIM KENNEY (D), Mayor
of Philadelphia: What
we are doing here is
following medical advice,
which I think every city and
state in the nation should
have, and we wouldn't be in
the situation that
we see resurging.
LISA DESJARDINS: In Louisiana,
where cases are again mounting,
Governor John Bel Edwards
has mandated face masks for
all residents in public.
Vice President Pence
visited the state today to
encourage emergency workers.
MIKE PENCE, Vice President
of the United States: Keep
up the great work, OK?
LISA DESJARDINS: Meanwhile,
the White House's testing czar
pushed back at some retweets
sent by President Trump accusing
health officials of lying.
Admiral Brett
Giroir spoke to NBC.
ADM. BRETT GIROIR, U.S.
Assistant Secretary for
Health and Human Services:
We may occasionally
make mistakes, based
on the information we
have, but none of us lie.
LISA DESJARDINS: Dr. Anthony
Fauci, the administration's
top disease expert,
whom President Trump has
criticized, was asked
in an online forum whom
Americans should trust,
and back to the experts.
DR. ANTHONY FAUCI,
NIAID Director: I would
stick with respected
medical authorities who
have a track record of telling
the truth, who have a track
record of giving information
and policy and recommendations
based on scientific
evidence and good data.
LISA DESJARDINS: Fauci also
alluded to some good news on
the vaccine front. Researchers
reported that the first U.S.
tests of one vaccine did, in
fact, boost immune systems,
a positive sign, but just
one of many steps and months
of further tests ahead.
Abroad, India has seen confirmed
infections explode, with
100,000 new cases in just four
days. The country has the
third highest global tally.
And, in Australia, the
government is imposing
tougher penalties for people
who violate quarantine.
In Queensland State, the penalty
for breaking the rules will
now be up to six months in
jail.
For the "PBS NewsHour,"
I'm Lisa Desjardins.
AMNA NAWAZ: In the day's other
news: The Department of Homeland
Security dropped its directive
that international students in
the U.S. attend college classes
in person or leave the country.
The announcement came at
a federal court hearing
in Boston. Harvard and
MIT had sued, arguing
the rule would force students
to risk getting the coronavirus
and cost the schools money.
More than 200 other
colleges universities
supported the lawsuit.
Three states held
primaries today, amid
the COVID-19 resurgence.
In Texas, Democrats were
choosing a challenger
to Republican John
Cornyn, a three-term U.S.
senator. The state did not
require face masks at
the polls and did not
expand mail-in voting.
In Alabama, former U.S.
Attorney General Jeff
Sessions faced Tommy
Tuberville for a Republican
Senate nomination. And in
Maine, Republican Senator Susan
Collins awaited the winner of
the Democratic
nominating contest.
President Trump has
weighed in again on racial
issues confronting the
nation. In a CBS News
interview today, he
dismissed concerns about
the Confederate Flag and
said -- quote -- "People
love it." He also criticized a
question about black Americans
being disproportionately killed
by police by saying -- quote
-- "So are white people, more
white people, by the way."
The president also signed an
order aimed at China's efforts
to rein in protests in Hong
Kong. The order strips the
territory of preferential
financial treatment.
Meanwhile, China sharply
criticized the U.S.
for rejecting most of
its territorial claims
in the South China Sea.
Beijing accused Washington
of -- quote -- "flexing its
muscles" and interfering
in the region.
Britain has reversed course, and
will ban Chinese telecom giant
Huawei from its next-generation
mobile phone system. The U.S.
had pressed for the change,
and the British government
announced it today.
Dan Hewitt of Independent
Television reports.
OLIVER DOWDEN, United Kingdom
Secretary of State for Culture,
Media and Sport: The U.K.
can no longer be confident
it will be able to guarantee
the future security of Huawei
5G equipment. By the time
of the next election,
we will have implemented
in law an irreversible
path for complete removal
of the Huawei equipment
from our 5G networks.
DAN HEWITT: So why have the
government done it? Well,
Huawei may be the world's second
largest supplier of mobile
phones after Samsung,
but the Chinese firm's
equipment is also at
the heart of the U.K.'s mobile
network. And it's their role
in the newest technology,
5G, where the apparent
security risks lie.
In May, the U.S. imposed
sanctions on Huawei, who claim
China could use the firm to spy
on them. And, today, U.K.
Security Services concluded they
could not guarantee that using
Huawei's 5G kit was safe. So
the government will ban all
telecoms companies from buying
Huawei's equipment after
this year and remove
all their 5G technology
from the U.K. by 2027.
JEREMY THOMPSON, Executive Vice
President, Huawei U.K.: We're
disappointed by the announcement
today. It wasn't totally
unexpected, but the severity and
the speed of the implementation,
we think, will be a problem for
the U.K. network. So it's not
good news for U.K. consumers.
DAN HEWITT: But major economies
do not see you as trustworthy,
and they believe you are
ultimately answerable
to the Chinese state.
JEREMY THOMPSON: We provide
communication services to
one-third of the planet. So, we
are trusted.
DAN HEWITT: Huawei will be
allowed to carry on providing
equipment for Britain's 3G and
4G networks, but the government
admitted today that removing
them from 5G would set the U.K.
back two or three years,
and cost the phone companies
two billion pounds.
KAREN EGAN, Telecommunications
Analyst: Ultimately, it's very
likely the consumer is going to
pay for that. And the consumer
is going to pay in terms of
slower 5G rollout and kind
of waiting longer for the
benefits that ensues from that.
DAN HEWITT: While this
latest government U-turn
will be welcomed in
Washington, attention
will now turn to reaction in
Beijing and the diplomatic
cost of pulling the plug on one
of its biggest names.
AMNA NAWAZ: That report
from Dan Hewitt of
Independent Television News.
In Bangladesh, seasonal monsoon
flooding has now left more
than a million people stranded
or displaced. With major rivers
rising, villagers in the north
are using makeshift boats to
get animals and belongings to
higher ground. The water is
flowing in from India upstream.
The monsoon season begins in
June and runs through October.
Back in this country, meanwhile,
the federal government carried
out its first execution
in 17 years. Daniel Lewis Lee
died by lethal injection at a
federal prison in Terre Haute,
Indiana. He murdered three
people in Arkansas in 1996
in a white supremacist
plot. The execution
went ahead after the U.S.
Supreme Court lifted a lower
court's injunction overnight.
British socialite Ghislaine
Maxwell pled not guilty today to
luring young girls into sexual
abuse by Jeffrey Epstein. She
appeared in a video hearing
before a federal court in
New York. The judge denied
bail for Maxwell and set a new
trial date for next July. Her
longtime confidant Epstein
was facing sex trafficking
charges when he killed himself
in jail last August.
Another federal judge in New
York has rejected a settlement
between Harvey Weinstein and
his sexual misconduct accusers.
The former Hollywood producer
is serving 23 years for
rape and sexual assault. He
had agreed to pay $19 million,
but the judge ruled today
that the dozens of accusers
are too varied to be grouped
into a single settlement.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth
Bader Ginsburg was hospitalized
today with a possible infection.
A court statement says she's
at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore
after having a bile duct stent
cleaned out. She's expected to
remain there for several days.
Ginsburg has had two bouts
with cancer and been
hospitalized several
times in recent years.
And on Wall Street today,
stocks picked up steam after a
slow start, as investors again
pushed aside concerns
over COVID-19. The
Dow Jones industrial
average gained 556 points
to close at 26642. The
Nasdaq rose 97 points,
and the S&P 500 added 42.
Still to come on the "NewsHour":
Bernie Sanders discusses the
race for the White House and
Biden's plan to combat climate
change; the Centers for Disease
Control faces increasing
scrutiny for its handling of
the pandemic; the struggles
of community college students
burdened by COVID-19 and
structural inequality;
plus, much more.
Today, former Vice President
Joe Biden released new policy
proposals aimed at the climate
crisis. His $2 trillion
plan will increase
the use of renewable
energy, and it includes
a goal of a carbon
pollution-free power
sector by 2035.
Here's what the former
vice president said in
a speech in Delaware:
JOSEPH BIDEN (D), Presidential
Candidate: I know that
climate change is a challenge
that's going to define our
America's future. I know
meeting the challenge will
be a once-in-a-lifetime
opportunity to jolt new life
into our economy, strengthen
our global leadership, protect
our planet for
future generations.
If I have the honor of being
elected president, we're not
just going to tinker around the
edges. We're going to
make historic investments
that will seize the
opportunity and meet this
moment in history.
AMNA NAWAZ: These policy
proposals were formed
in part by joint task
forces created to unify
the Democratic Party. They
were put together by Biden and
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders,
who joins me now.
Senator Sanders, welcome
back to the "NewsHour," and
thanks for being with us.
I want to ask you about your
team's efforts to move the Biden
campaign and the Biden team
platform a little bit further to
the left. As we just mentioned,
you did get him to move
up that timeline to commit to
100 percent clean electricity.
But it's not the Green
New Deal.
You did get him to commit
to a government-run
public health care option.
But it's not Medicare
for all. So, those were key
campaign issues for you.
Do you think these policies
are enough for your backers
to want to back Biden?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT):
Well, given that the alternative
is Donald Trump, the most
dangerous president in the
history of this country, I'm
absolutely confident that those
proposals are not only
a significant step
forward, but are going
to win widespread support
from the progressive community.
What Joe Biden understands
is that, in order to win this
election -- and I'm going to do
everything I can to see that
he does win it - - we're going
to need a large voter turnout.
And to get a large voter
turnout, there has to be energy
and excitement among younger
people, among working-class
people, among people who very
often who do not vote, for
a variety of reasons.
And I think what our task force
has managed to do is to reach
compromises which are going
to bring a lot more
excitement to a sector
of the voting population
that was less enthusiastic
about Joe.
AMNA NAWAZ: Can I ask you,
Senator, are you worried those
compromises could temper some
of that excitement or enthusiasm
that you say Mr. Biden needs?
I mean, there's already been
some criticism, even from your
former national press secretary,
who said that the Biden
team was showing -- quote
- - "mocking disrespect"
for voters with these
kinds of plans.
What do you say to people
who have concerns that these
plans don't go far enough?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Well,
I will tell you, I don't
think they go far enough.
And the people who are
on representing the
progressive community
on the task forces don't
think these proposals go far
enough. But the answer is to
elect Joe Biden, and then to
strengthen our grassroots
movement to make sure that, in
all respects, the environment,
the economy, health care,
we have a government
that represents all of
us, and not just the
few.
But I think it is very hard
for anybody to seriously look
at these proposals, whether
it is on health care, whether
it's on the environment or
climate change, whether it's
on education, whether it's in
the economy, and not to see
that, if these proposals were
to be implemented, Joe Biden
would be the most progressive
president since FDR.
It's a significant step
forward, but, in truth, it's
not all that I would like.
AMNA NAWAZ: Senator, as you
know, during this pandemic,
voters' top issues have shifted
somewhat. Things like health
care, immigration, even climate
change have moved further down
the list. Obviously,
the coronavirus and the
pandemic response and
the economy have moved
to the top.
So, as Congress is now
considering another spending
plan, I want to ask you, how big
do you think it should be?
And what do you say to people
who are concerned that, the
bigger that response gets,
the more it's going to
push America into the red?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Look,
this is what I say. And that
is that we are living in an
unprecedented moment
in American history.
We have a pandemic, because
-- and, because of Trump's
ineptitude and downplaying this
pandemic from day one, is
getting worse in many states
in this country; 135,000 people
have already died. And
that number will grow
in months to come.
We have an economy which has
lost tens of millions of jobs.
Today in Vermont and throughout
this country, people are
hungry. By the millions,
people are worried about
being evicted. People
in many cases have lost
their health insurance.
We have got to stand up and
represent the working families
of this country, who are
seeing today more desperation
than they have seen
in many, many decades.
And the alternative to
not becoming aggressive
is to see, in my view,
not only unbelievable
human suffering, but to see this
economy head straightforward
into a Great Depression.
AMNA NAWAZ: Senator, to that
point, how big do you think
that that next spending plan
should be, then?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Well,
the House passed its bill for
$3 trillion. And I think the
Senate should do
at least as much.
We are seeing now unprecedented
suffering in this country.
We have tens of millions
of people who've lost their
jobs. Many have lost their
health care. There are people in
my state of Vermont, throughout
this country who today are
worried about feeding their
families. People are
worried about being
evicted from their homes.
This is America, the wealthiest
country in the history of
the world. Now is the time
to stand with working families.
And let me just say this. If
we don't do that, not only are
we going to see an increase in
suffering and death. What
we're also going to see is this
country plunging, in my view,
into the worst economic decline
since the Great Depression.
AMNA NAWAZ: Senator,
less than a minute left.
I have to ask you. As we
look back to 2016, it's worth
pointing out that most of your
supporters back then did end
up voting for Hillary Clinton,
but more than a quarter did
not. In fact, I met many of
them even earlier this primary
season who described themselves
as Bernie or bust, right? They
weren't sure that they were
going to vote for the Democratic
nominee if it wasn't you.
I wonder, do you think now
that selecting a running mate
who is more progressive, like
Elizabeth Warren, would
help Mr. Biden to win over
some of those supporters?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Well, I
think that the Biden campaign,
they're very good politicians.
And I think they understand
that they need a vice president
who not only will have the
right politics for Joe Biden,
but as somebody he is personally
compatible with. I think,
when you're dealing with the
vice president, there has got to
be a lot of personal chemistry.
And that's a decision, I'm
sure, that Joe and his team
are looking very hard at right
now.
AMNA NAWAZ: That is
Vermont Senator Bernie
Sanders joining us tonight.
Thank you so much
for your time, sir.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS:
My pleasure. Thank you.
AMNA NAWAZ: Traditionally,
the U.S. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, or the
CDC, is seen as the leading
government agency to monitor
public health during an epidemic
and to convey key information
to the larger public.
Historically, the CDC is not
very political. But, in many
ways, its role has been very
different during this pandemic.
As William Brangham tells us
now, four former directors of
the agency say, the CDC's voice
has been muted for
political reasons.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Amna, these
four former directors these
are men who have served in
Republican and Democratic
administrations just issued
an editorial in The Washington
Post.
And they argued that the
agency's voice and crucial
guidance has been sidelined.
They wrote -- quote -- "We're
seeing the terrible effect of
undermining the CDC play out in
our population. Willful
disregard for public
health guidelines is,
unsurprisingly, leading
to a sharp rise in
infections and deaths."
One of those former directors
is joining me now. Dr. Thomas
Besser -- Richard Besser is
the CEO of the Robert
Wood Johnson Foundation,
which we should say is a
funder of the "NewsHour."
Dr. Besser, thank you
very much for being here.
The headline of your editorial
said: "We ran the CDC. No
president ever politicized its
science the way Trump has."
How has he done so?
DR. RICHARD BESSER, Former
Acting Director, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention:
Well you know, what
we're seeing, William,
is a clash of messages.
We hear every public health
leader in the nation talking
about how serious this pandemic
is, talking about the steps
we need to take as individuals
and as a nation to ensure that
we minimize the damage
to people's lives.
And then we hear politicians,
starting at the White House,
talk about how there's nothing
to worry about, how public
health is overplaying
this. And the injection
of politics into a
public health response
is extremely dangerous
for the nation.
CDC is the nation's public
health agency. And their
guidance informs what states do,
what local public health does.
By injecting politics into
it and undermining the trust
that we need to have in
that guidance, it puts
people's lives at risk.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And what
are some of the real-world
effects of that politicizing of
the science?
DR. RICHARD BESSER:
Well, a number of things.
The biggest challenge I'm seeing
for CDC is that they're not
having daily press conferences.
They're not able to talk to the
public through the media about
what they're doing and what
they're learning.
So, months ago, CDC talked
about masks and the importance
of health care workers wearing
masks, but talked about the
general public not needing to
wear masks. But there's been
a lot of learning that's
gone on in every public
health response. I
ran emergency response
at CDC for four years.
And during every response, what
you don't know early on far
outweighs what you do know.
And you use science to drive
the direction of your response.
So, as CDC learned more, as
we learned more from other
nations and what was successful,
CDC changed their guidance.
They recommend that everyone
in America wear a mask. And
the reason is because a lot
of people can transmit this
infection before they even know
they're sick. So, by wearing a
mask, you can cut down on that.
Well, the CDC had no opportunity
to make that case to the public.
So, it looked like a total
flip-flop. Without bringing
the public along, there's no
way to build the trust that is
absolutely essential
during a response.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: As I
quoted, you write that
the willful disregard
of scientific expertise
is leading to increasing
cases and deaths.
Do you really believe that this
interference has cost American
lives, that -- people who
would have survived had this
interference not occurred?
DR. RICHARD BESSER: I do. I do.
And I also think that that's
part of the reason we're seeing
such disparate impact on black
Americans, Latino Americans,
Native Americans, so many of
whom are essential workers.
Well, if you're an
essential worker, and
the people you're having
contact with aren't wearing
masks because they don't believe
that there's any value to it,
you're putting those essential
workers at risk.
And if -- those essential
workers, maybe their
health is fine, and
they're going to do well
with this infection. But
higher proportions of black
Americans, Latino Americans live
in multigenerational households.
So they're coming home, and
maybe they will give this
infection to somebody
who won't handle it so
well. That costs lives.
The fact that we're seeing
so many young people
around the nation going
back to their social
lives, feeling like there's
nothing to worry about here,
that is a total undercut of what
public health science
is saying to do.
And we need our public health
scientists and our political
leaders to be on the same page.
And it needs to be
the page of science.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I mean, as
you well know from your time
running the agency, the CDC
has to walk this very fine
line. It has to be close enough
to an administration so that
their advice is taken, but
it also has to be separate
enough so that the public sees
them as a neutral arbiter of
public health information.
Do you think, given how
grave you're describing
this circumstance,
that the CDC director,
Robert Redfield, should have
stepped forward more forcefully
and said, no, I don't think
we're on the right path,
we need to do differently?
DR. RICHARD BESSER: Well,
I think every leader,
every CDC director has
to -- has to know what
their line in the sand is, and
recognize that if they're --
if they're forced to step over
that, that they're
going to take an action.
It is absolutely essential
that the public trusts the
information coming from the CDC,
that it's the best evidence.
Whenever CDC puts through --
puts a guidance forward, it
goes through clearance. It's
shared with other agencies. It's
shared with the White House.
That's where you have science
and policy interacting,
so that what goes forward
can be going forward
with a unified front. But,
after guidance comes out,
it's been unprecedented to see
political leaders undercutting
the guidance, telling people
they don't need to follow it,
that it's -- that it's overdone,
that it's too expensive.
The idea that we can open our
schools this fall if we have
not -- if we don't have this
under control and if we're not
providing schools with what they
need to -- so that our children
are safe and staff are safe
and teachers are safe, this
is something that we can do as
a nation, but it has to be
driven by that road map that
public health is laying out
so clearly.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I mean, as
you know, the CDC has had a
few missteps. Their initial
viral test malfunctioned. They
seemed for a period of time
to be double-counting both
viral tests and antibody tests.
Do you think that some of those
missteps might have added to
the sort of ammunition that
is being used to
shoot at them now?
DR. RICHARD BESSER: Well,
it's definitely ammunition.
But I worked at CDC for 13 years
and led emergency response for
four. There was never a response
effort that we had where
we didn't make mistakes.
But we had the opportunity
every day to talk
to the public and say, here's
something we tried. We thought
this was the right way to
go. Here's -- it didn't
work. Here's what we
learned from that.
The CDC doesn't have that
opportunity here. So, there's
so much conversation about old
mistakes that CDC made.
If CDC were out front, and
were talking to the press every
day -- one of the things the
press does, it asks the tough
questions and makes sure that
CDC doesn't have blind spots
around things they should
be paying attention to.
They're not getting that.
And so not only are they not
able to share and build trust.
Their response is not as
good because they're not
interacting directly.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right,
Dr. Richard Besser, CEO of the
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
and former acting director
of the CDC, thank you very,
very much for your time.
DR. RICHARD BESSER:
Thank you, William.
AMNA NAWAZ: Now the first in
a special series of reports
about Rethinking College during
COVID.
Many students, families
and, of course, colleges
and universities are
indeed rethinking about
what this fall will be like,
as the pandemic continues to
dramatically reshape the higher
education landscape.
Our series begins with community
colleges, which educate about
40 percent of undergraduates
in the U.S. Many were already
stretched thin before the
pandemic, but surveys indicate
enrollment is likely
to increase as students
and workers shift plans.
Correspondent Hari Sreenivasan
looks at how one community
college and its students are
coping.
HARI SREENIVASAN: Maryland's
Montgomery College,
just outside D.C., is
eerily quiet these days.
During a typical July, the
school's three campuses would
be bustling with summer school
students.
But like so many colleges and
universities around the country,
learning here has shifted
from classrooms and labs to
bedrooms and living rooms.
Montgomery College is one of
the country's most diverse
community colleges. It's nestled
in a county with pockets of
poverty and wealth. About 55,000
students ordinarily attend for
accredited degrees and
other programs like
work force development.
The school was one of the first
in the area to announce it
will continue remote learning
in the fall with a limited
number of small lab classes.
It's too early to know how many
will attend next year, but
the school is already seeing
an uptick in interest.
DERIONNE POLLARD, President,
Montgomery College: If I look
at my enrollment for summer, we
will probably be about 20
percent up in terms of where
we were this time last year.
HARI SREENIVASAN:
DeRionne Pollard is
president of the college.
She says, as the school gears
up for increased enrollment,
she's staying focused on current
students, many of whom were
struggling before the pandemic.
DERIONNE POLLARD: So, our
students oftentimes are hungry.
They are taking care of multiple
generations at any given
time. They're trying to figure
out how to get to school.
Many of them live very fragile
lives, and they're oftentimes
one paycheck away from
disaster.
HARI SREENIVASAN: In March,
that disaster struck when
businesses began to close.
Many students and their families
lost jobs, and some struggled
with the move to online
learning. That was the case
for 19-year-old graphic design
major Kayla Savoy. She says
she enjoys creating and learning
about art in her classes,
but technology issues and
distractions at home
made it difficult to
stay focused on school.
KAYLA SAVOY, College Student:
The Wi-Fi, absolutely atrocious
at my house. There's technically
five or six of us all living
at once. You have a toddler
screaming about "Paw Patrol"
in the background while your
8:00 a.m. class is going on.
HARI SREENIVASAN: Savoy is
paying her own way through
school and says she managed to
get straight A's last semester.
But she's been struggling
to find work the last few
months, and it's been
hard to pay for things
like gas and food.
On top of those concerns, she
and many of her classmates
have been deeply impacted by
recent events surrounding
racial inequities.
KAYLA SAVOY: I got to this
point where I was like, I don't
know how I'm going to be able
to juggle more than I
already have. And then
I turn around, and I see
more senseless killings
of my people.
And, as a black woman, I fear
for so many people that are
important in my life. It becomes
just an overwhelming feeling
of, what can I do? Can I not
study for classes? Can I not
go to the store without
my life being in danger?
HARI SREENIVASAN: Montgomery
College has been trying to
help students cope with many of
these stresses. The school
has distributed more than $3.5
million in emergency aid, money
from the federal CARES Act,
private donors, established
emergency funds, and $400,000
the school saved from canceled
end-of-the-year ceremonies.
Early on, local companies
donated laptops, and free food
was handed out to students and
the surrounding community,
where unemployment has jumped
up in recent months to nearly 9
percent.
DERIONNE POLLARD: Our students,
they don't pop in for eight
or nine months out of the
year, live in a residence hall,
and they go back to where they
came from. They live here.
They work here. They
raise families here.
So, as a result of that,
the wealth and health
of our community is a
direct reflection of
the health of our community
college, and vice versa. There's
a mutuality to that that demands
that we rise up
in these moments.
HARI SREENIVASAN: Pollard
says this moment also requires
thoughtful engagement and action
by the school and
academia in general to
address systemic racism.
During open Zoom forums called
Let's Talk, faculty and staff
have been facilitating candid
conversations.
ANDRAE BROWN, Professor,
Montgomery College:
We're literally watching
the murder of people
consistently on television
over and over and over again.
That's not only dehumanizing to
the person, but it
desensitizes us to what
the value of that life is.
HARI SREENIVASAN: And some
faculty, like anthropology
adjunct Professor Amy
Carattini are encouraging
students to explore race
and ethnicity in new ways.
Amy Carattini, Professor,
Montgomery College:
I think it's just so
important to make students
feel comfortable to talk about
these issues. I think there's
a lot of nervousness or fear
of saying the wrong thing
or doing the wrong thing.
HARI SREENIVASAN: But outside
of the classroom, some wonder
how well Montgomery College and
other community colleges
will be able to meet the
challenges of these times.
SARA GOLDRICK-RAB, Temple
University: Community
colleges have been
systematically defunded
for years, and they were
already in a tough situation
when it came to resources, when
it came to instructional
supports, when it came
to being ready to serve
these large numbers
of students.
HARI SREENIVASAN: Temple
University's Sara Goldrick-Rab
is a professor of sociology and
medicine. She and her colleagues
recently released a survey
that found nearly three
in five college students across
the country have experienced
basic needs insecurity during
the pandemic.
She says lack of funding can
lead to staff shortages and
limited course offerings, and
the current job market may make
it more difficult for students
to get across the finish line.
SARA GOLDRICK-RAB: These
students are at very high risk
of going to college for all the
right reasons, and
leaving because they
had very little choice.
People used to work their way
through college in the 1970s
and the 1980s. They have always
done that. But now work
has literally disappeared.
This is not a temporary
challenge, when these
people, if they drop
out of college, they're
going to struggle for
the next 10 to 15 years,
at least, to repay the
debt that they owe.
HARI SREENIVASAN: Montgomery
College President Pollard has
those issues and others on her
plate as she steers the college
into what could be a rocky fall.
DERIONNE POLLARD: If students
do come to us and we know,
they will need financial aid.
We know that the state and even
the federal government may not
be able to provide as much,
because they're trying to
raise an economy back up.
We know that there's a lot of
uncertainty. But here's the
thing about it. We have been
here before. Community colleges
have a deep competency in
trying to respond to these types
of environments.
HARI SREENIVASAN: Fifty-five
thousand students, more
or less, will log into
their online classes
on August 31, when the
fall semester begins,
but the school's campuses
will remain quiet
for the foreseeable future.
For the "PBS NewsHour,"
I'm Hari Sreenivasan.
AMNA NAWAZ: From landmark
decisions on immigration
and LGBTQ protections,
to virtual oral arguments
amid the pandemic, the Supreme
Court concluded a term last
week that is certainly one for
the history books.
We take a deeper look
into the Roberts court
and its blockbuster
term with Marcia Coyle,
chief Washington correspondent
for "The National Law
Journal," Paul Clement,
former U.S. solicitor
general during the George
W. Bush administration.
And Neal Katyal, he served
as the acting solicitor
general under President Obama.
Welcome to you all. And
thank you for being here.
Neal and Paul, we should point
out, between the two of you,
you have argued almost 150
cases before the court.
Neal, I'm going to start with
you, because I want to get a
sense of how you're looking
back on this term.
Earlier in June, there
was a sense that this is
a court that's leaning
actually quite liberal.
There, within a couple
weeks, they ruled workers
can't be fired for being
gay or transgender.
They stopped President
Trump's effort to end
DACA. And they struck down
a restrictive abortion
law in Louisiana.
How did you see that string
of rulings? Was that an
outright win for progressives?
NEAL KATYAL, Former Acting
U.S. Solicitor General: Well,
I agree that there have been
an outright number of wins
that progressives have had, the
tax returns cases, DACA, the
LGBT cases, the
Louisiana abortion case.
In all of them, Donald Trump
lost. And I'm not aware of
another president, outside of
Richard Nixon, in our lifetimes
and perhaps even beyond who
has fared worse at the Supreme
Court.
But I really think of it
that way, is much more about
serious losses for Trump than I
do about the court turning
progressive or liberal,
which I don't think is true.
Paul and I both know this. We
both represented presidents in
the Supreme Court. It's pretty
hard to lose if you're
representing the president.
You got to kind of
try. It's like failing
a class at Yale. You
got to work at it.
But, here, they have managed
to lose a lot. And I don't
think it's really as much the
fault of the lawyers, but
really outlandish positions by
the Trump administration and
outlandish process by
the Trump administration.
And so what look like liberal
results are really just kind
of basic rule of law results.
And I will point you
in particular to the
tax returns cases, in
which President Trump's
own appointees totally
rejected his position
of absolute immunity.
AMNA NAWAZ: Paul, what's
your take on that?
When you look at those
particular string of rulings,
how did you assess them?
PAUL CLEMENT, Former
U.S. Solicitor General:
Well, I think that, on
a number of these cases,
you really do have to look at
the context of what the court
is specifically wrestling
with.
Those tax return cases were
very unprecedented cases. And I
think, in some respects, it is
not that unprecedented for a
president to lose big, even
with his own nominees, when
it comes to executive
power. President Clinton
sort of famously lost
Clinton against Jones
9-0 and lost two of his nominees
along the way in that case.
So I do think it really depends
a lot on the nature of the
particular issues. And I think
that, if you look two weeks
ago, before the end of the term,
it was looking quite liberal.
But, by the end of the term,
there were a number of religious
liberty cases in particular
that kind of made it a much
more nuanced story in the end.
AMNA NAWAZ: And I want
to get to those in more
detail in just a second.
Before we do though, Marcia,
I have to ask you. When you
look at the abortion decision,
for example, in that case,
there were four liberal justices
who voted to strike down
the law. And it was Chief
Justice John Roberts
who sided with them.
Talk to me a little bit about
the role that Roberts has
played on this court. And, at
the same time, we should mention
he had a very full plate.
He was also presiding over
the impeachment proceedings.
MARCIA COYLE, "The National
Law Journal": That's right,
Amna. It was an extraordinary
term on many levels.
But, as far as John Roberts
goes, I will take the maybe
30,000-mile view of the term and
say that this was a term that
began with a number of cases
that were fraught with political
and partisan implications. And I
think the Supreme Court emerged
unscathed by or untarnished
by either of those
because of John Roberts.
He was able, by forming
cross-ideological majorities,
to steer the court through those
cases, and to sort of confirm
what he has been trying to
tell the public in some very
rare public statements,
that the court is an
independent institution.
Certainly, a number of
conservatives did hope
that, with the confirmation
of Justices Kavanaugh
and Gorsuch, that there would
be a rock-solid conservative
majority on the court. And that
is not the case.
It really does depend often
on the nature of the cases
that come before them. But I
really think, if you wanted to
look at winners and losers in
the term that just ended, you
would have to say that the
winner was the U.S. Supreme
Court, because it did emerge
unscathed from so many of
those cases that could have
painted -- if there had been 5-4
decisions in the normal
ideological split, it
could have been painted
as a partisan institution.
AMNA NAWAZ: Well, Paul, I want
to get back to some of those
cases you mentioned involving
religious freedom,
because there were a few.
And there seemed to be somewhat
of a trend when it came to
how those went. There was
one shielding religious schools
from lawsuits on employment
discrimination, another one
upholding the Trump
administration rule
that employers can deny
contraceptive coverage
on religious or moral grounds.
When you look at the body of
those decisions, what was the
message you think the court was
sending?
PAUL CLEMENT: Well, I think
adherence of religion and
people trying to vindicate
rights to religious
liberty did incredibly
well in all of those cases.
And in every one of those
cases, they got the vote of
Chief Justice Roberts. Some of
those cases were more in
the 7-2 department than
the 5-4 decision. One of
the most consequential,
the Espinoza case about school
choice and the role of state
constitutions in limiting
school choice, I think was
a 5-4 decision and a big
victory for religious liberty.
So, I do think those cases
underscore that John Roberts is
not a liberal or even a moderate
when it comes to some issues.
And I think it really depends
on the nature of the issues
that come before the court
in a particular term.
AMNA NAWAZ: Neal, what about
you? When you look at those
specific cases involving this
one issue of religious freedom,
which we know is very important
to the Trump administration,
how do you look
back on this term?
NEAL KATYAL: Well, I think
Paul's absolutely right. The
religious freedom cases show the
conservative, so-called
conservatives won a lot.
And I agree with him that you
have to look to the overall
context. It's just the number
of cases here in which the
Trump administration position
lost is pretty extraordinary.
And so Marcia puts it better
than me when she says, the
Supreme Court is the winner
in last term. I would say a
footnote to that is, I think the
rule of law was also a winner.
I mean, our country is
so bitterly politically
divided right now.
And the Supreme Court, really,
and because of Chief Justice
Roberts' ability to steer
the court, really points to a
different way, a way of mutual
respect, a way in which we
can listen to those from
the other side and be the --
forge agreements with them.
It was really, I think, a
majestic thing to behold. And
it's not a liberal thing. And
I don't think the chief
justice is some liberal.
The best evidence of
that is, at 2:00 a.m.
this morning, he cast the fifth
vote to resume the federal death
penalty, when the litigants
didn't even have a
chance to brief and argue
all their challenges.
So I think everyone should be
careful when they use liberal
or conservative terms with
respect to the court.
AMNA NAWAZ: Marcia, as
we reported earlier,
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is
back in the hospital.
Obviously, there have been
some health concerns among
the Supreme Court justices.
As you look ahead to the next
term, tell me a little bit
about how we should be thinking
about some of the cases ahead
and some of the general concerns
about the health of those
justices.
MARCIA COYLE: Well, I think,
Amna, when you look at the
ages of some of the justices,
you have Justice Ginsburg
now 86, I believe. You have
Justice Breyer 81. Several other
justices are over 65 and
are in that age group
that is most vulnerable
to the COVID-19 virus,
that you have to take pause
and wonder if, next term,
there could be some changes in
the court's personnel
on the bench.
So that may very well
be something to watch
closely. I know that
the Trump administration
is hoping once again to
make the court an issue in
the presidential election.
Right now, though, I don't think
that is going to figure into
how the justices deliberate
at all. Don't count Justice
Ginsburg out. She is -- has
been remarkably resilient.
AMNA NAWAZ: It is
a court to watch.
And, of course, I'm
sure we all wish Justice
Ginsburg a speedy recovery.
That is Marcia Coyle, Neal
Katyal, and Paul Clement.
Thanks so much
for being with us.
MARCIA COYLE: My pleasure.
PAUL CLEMENT: Thank you.
NEAL KATYAL: Thank you.
AMNA NAWAZ: In the wake of
protests against systemic racism
in America, many industries
are reexamining past practices
and facing questions about
their own racial biases.
One new effort puts a spotlight
on the world of publishing.
Here's Jeffrey Brown's
Race Matters report.
That's part of our ongoing arts
and culture series, Canvas.
JEFFREY BROWN: It began as
a social media call out,
#PublishingPaidMe, a request for
authors to reveal the
advances they have been
paid for their books.
The result, based on responses
from hundreds of writers, a
clear disparity between black
and non-black authors.
The hashtag was started by
L.L. McKinney, a writer of
fantasy novels for young adults.
L.L. MCKINNEY, Author, "A
Dream So Dark": This advance
has a lot to do with how well
the publisher thinks
the story will do.
And a lot of that has to do
with this idea of a universal
story. If a certain story is
more universal, then more people
will have access to it. And
this highlights what publishing
views as the default
for the universal story.
JEFFREY BROWN: The
call-out struck a nerve,
and many prominent black
authors weighed in,
including novelist Jesmyn Ward,
who wrote of how she fought
and fought for a $100,000
advance for her third novel,
"Sing, Unburied, Sing," even
after her second, "Salvage the
Bones," for which she received
about $20,000, had won the
National Book Award for fiction.
By contrast, Lydia Kiesling,
who is white, wrote of
receiving a $200,000 advance for
her literary debut. N.K.
Jemisin, a black novelist who
won the Hugo Award recognizing
the best science fiction and
fantasy writing three years in
a row, said she received just
$25,000 advances for each of
the books in her award-winning
Broken Earth trilogy.
L.L. MCKINNEY: You have
an award-winning author
who is beloved by so
many, you know, right
on up to presidents picking up
her book, you know, vs. some
people who we have never heard
of, because the book doesn't
earn out or it flops.
But then that person can
turn around and get that same
advance and a second chance.
JEFFREY BROWN: The
outpouring on Twitter
confirmed many suspicions.
L.L. MCKINNEY: I knew that
there was a disparity.
I didn't realize how
large the disparity was.
Like, we knew it was there,
and we knew it was big, but we
didn't know it was that big.
WOMAN: A new novel by Jeanine
Cummins up a debate about white
privilege, racism in publishing
and the unintended
consequences of telling a
story that is not your own.
JEFFREY BROWN: Earlier
this year, the publishing
industry came under
fire over issues of pay
and representation for the
novel "American Dirt," a story
of Mexican migrants written
by a non-Mexican author,
Jeanine Cummins, who reportedly
received a seven-figure advance.
Some prominent Latino writers
found the story inauthentic,
advancing harmful stereotypes.
For L.L. McKinney, all
these issues are personal.
L.L. MCKINNEY: I was a kid
who loved science fiction and
fantasy, but science fiction and
fantasy did not love me back.
If I was on the page, I was
the sassy best friend, or I was
the enemy, or I was the help,
or I was the gangbanger.
As a child, I didn't
have the vocabulary to
articulate what I was
seeing and feeling. But now
that I do, that's what I want to
change for the readers of today
and the readers of the future.
JEFFREY BROWN: Also now thinking
of those readers, Dana Canedy,
newly appointed publisher
of Simon & Schuster. A former
New York Times journalist and
more recently administrator
of the Pulitzer Prizes,
she becomes the first
black person to head a
major publishing house.
Dana Canedy joins me
now from New York.
Dana Canedy, welcome to you.
So, let's start with that
hashtag #PublishingPaidMe.
It put a spotlight on
black writers being
paid less and, therefore, a
sense of being valued less.
Now, I know you're new to this
industry, but what do you see?
How do you respond to something
like that?
DANA CANEDY, Senior Vice
President and Publisher,
Simon & Schuster: Well,
I think it's going
to be my job to make
sure that doesn't happen
at Simon & Schuster and
hopefully to be able
to influence the larger
publishing community as well.
There's no excuse for that.
And I wouldn't have stood for
it when I was writing my book.
Thankfully, that didn't happen
to me. But, as a leader in
this industry now, I want to
hear from folks who have had
those experiences and figure
out how we can solve it.
JEFFREY BROWN: Many cultural
institutions, of course, are
now reexamining themselves
in light of the Black
Lives Matter protest.
In what specific ways --
publishing has long been seen
as an insular and largely white
in its makeup as an industry.
In what specific ways do you
think it should look at itself
and change?
DANA CANEDY: It's very
funny to me when people
say that publishing
fits that sort of M.O.,
because you could be talking
about law, or really sort
of any other industry.
I think industries in general
need to look at themselves,
publishing included. And I,
for many years, headed up
diversity and inclusion
initiatives at The
New York Times as part
of my portfolio as a
senior manager there, a
senior newsroom leader.
And so I have a lot of tools in
my tool chest that I can call
upon. But I think, for Simon
& Schuster specifically, I
don't have the answers yet. I
need to get -- start the job,
get in there, roll up
my sleeves, and see what
they're doing and where
there are opportunities
for growth.
So, one thing anybody who works
with me knows is, I'm very
honest. I'm not going to pretend
to have answers that I don't. So
I will get in there, talk to the
staff, talk to the leadership,
and figure out where we go.
We will have -- and they
may already, but we will
have a comprehensive
approach to diversity
of all kinds. I just need
to get into the company and
figure out where we need to go.
And then I don't think
it's enough, as a leader
in this industry who
happens to be a person
of color, to just look
at Simon & Schuster.
I want to influence the entire
publishing community. It's a
little early to answer how,
but I will. And you can
check back with me in a year
and hold me accountable.
JEFFREY BROWN: OK, we -- I hope
we will get a chance to do that.
But I mentioned the case,
the debate around the
novel "American Dirt."
And I wonder. You're
a reader. You're a writer
yourself. Do you - -
when you look at this
world of publishing,
do you see a lack of
opportunities for writers
of color? Do you see
a lack of voices being
heard?
DANA CANEDY: So, I think
that's changed in recent years,
and there's more opportunity
than ever before, historically.
And not even in the very
distant past, that's been the
case.
I do think it's changing. And
I think it will continue to
because of the movement that's
taken hold in this
country. I also think
that's where I'm going to
have tremendous influence
to bring in different voices,
both established authors, but
emerging voices that could be
very important.
We have a lot of work to do.
We have to do it collectively.
I'm one person in one company.
But I think that there are
some opportunities for leaders
across publishing houses to put
our heads together and figure
out how we can influence this
issue, how we can improve things
related to both subject matter,
pay equity for advances, the
voices and the authors that
get highlighted.
All of that provides, in my
view, an exciting opportunity
to improve things. And I will
do that. I will as best I can.
JEFFREY BROWN: I know -- we
just have 30 seconds, but I read
that your son calls you, what,
word nerd.
I know you love books. But why
take this job? I mean (AUDIO
GAP) what is it you hope to
do, and why did you want it?
DANA CANEDY: Well, I think
it's a tremendous opportunity
to work with somebody I admire
greatly, Jonathan Karp, who's
one of the best minds in the
business. I wanted to work with
him.
I also think I can
have influence in the
ways you and I just
discussed. And I will, and
I intend to. But, also, I'm
a word nerd. I love words.
So, this is like a dream job.
JEFFREY BROWN: All right,
Dana Canedy is the new
publisher of Simon & Schuster.
Thank you, and good luck.
DANA CANEDY: Thank you.
Thanks for having me.
AMNA NAWAZ: And tonight on the
"PBS NewsHour" online, another
episode of our podcast "America,
Interrupted."
As the U.S. grapples with
how to reopen and contain the
coronavirus, we go across the
pond to the U.K. to hear about
what we might learn from how
Brits are handling the pandemic.
Listen on our Web site.
That's PBS.org/NewsHour or
wherever you get your podcasts.
Also on the "NewsHour" online,
"Citizen" by Claudia Rankine
is our July selection for
Now Read This, our book club
with The New York Times. It's
a collection of essays, images
and poetry that consider
how collective expressions
of racism play out in
contemporary society.
Rankine recently told the
"NewsHour" about how a natural
disaster, Hurricane Katrina,
prompted her to focus her
work on race in America.
And that is the "NewsHour"
for tonight. I'm Amna Nawaz.
Join us online and again here
tomorrow evening. For all of
us at the "PBS NewsHour," thank
you, please stay safe,
and we'll see you soon.