wow, you get to watch all your favorite stuff. it's to die for. now you won't miss a thing. this is the way. xfinity internet. made for streaming. geoff: good evening. i'm geoff bennett. amna nawaz is away. on the “newshour” tonight, the white house considers allowing ukraine to use american-supplied weapons to strike inside russia. the justice department sues

ticketmaster and its parent company live nation, accusing the companies of blocking competition in the live entertainment industry. and the u.s. supreme court rejects a claim of racial gerrymandering in south carolina, raising questions about future judgments on race and representation. >> these are complex cases because of the close link between race and political party. ♪ >> major funding for the "pbs newshour" has been provided by. ♪

>> moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf. the engine that connects us. >> carnegie corporation of new york, working to reduce political polarization through philanthropic support for education, democracy, and peace. more information at carnegie.org. and with the ongoing support of these individuals and institutions. ♪ this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting and by

contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. geoff: welcome to the “newshour.” russian missiles struck kharkiv in ukraine's east today, killing at least seven civilians. ukraine is desperately trying to hold off a new russian offensive that threatens ukraine's second largest city. and u.s. officials tell the "pbs newshour" that the administration is debating whether to lift a restriction on the use of american weapons to target russian weapons in russia. nick schifrin starts our coverage. nick: in the smoky aftermath of a russian missile, firefighters pick through the pieces of russia's latest battlefield of choice, books, books turned to ash in what was one of ukraine's largest printing houses. russia has been bombarding kharkiv and trying to occupy towns further north, including vovchansk, to try and bring kharkiv city into artillery range and draw ukrainian forces away from fierce fighting in the donbass.

in vovchansk, there's no cover from russian drones. the city center has been ripped apart by russian weapons parked right over the border inside russia. newly arrived western ammunition has helped ukrainian troops hold the line. but they can't use u.s. weapons to hit the russian weapons in russia that are hitting them. this week, president volodymyr zelenskyy told reuters wants that restriction lifted. >> we are negotiating with partners so that we can use their weapons against buildups of russian equipment on the border and even on their territory. so far, there is nothing positive. nick: the united kingdom has provided long-range storm shadow missiles and so far the only public western endorsement of zelenskyy's request. david cameron, british foreign secretary: it is their decision about how to use these weapons. we don't discuss any caveats that we put on, on those things. nick: ukraine also wants nato planes inside nato airspace to fire into western ukraine, so

ukraine can transfer its own air defense assets east. >> when russian missiles are flying, polish planes are sent up, but they don't shoot down russian missiles? can they do this? i'm sure, yes. nick: senior u.s. officials tell me, while the idea of using nato assets to shoot down russian missiles over ukraine is deemed too risky, there is a debate about whether to allow ukraine to use american weapons to target russian weapons just over the border inside russia. and the new york times today reported secretary of state antony blinken has now endorsed that idea. so, should the u.s. lift restrictions on where ukraine can fire american weapons? for that, we get two views. william taylor was u.s. ambassador to ukraine during the george w. bush administration. and emma ashford is a senior fellow at the stimson center and writes widely about u.s. foreign policy. thanks very much. welcome, both of you, back to the "newshour.” ambassador taylor, let me start with you. should the u.s. allow ukraine to use american weapons against

russian targets in russia, whether on the ground in russia or in the air above russia, not only on the border, but deeper inside russia? >> nick, i'd say yes. if the russians are firing at ukrainians from a sanctuary, which is really what they have right now, then the ukrainians ought to be able to shoot back. this is basic self-defense. and some of the russian fire is coming from close by, close across the border in that sanctuary, but some is coming from airfields. so there are russian jets that are taking off from airfields and that are launching these glide bombs that are going into kharkiv, as you just described. so, yes, i think the ukrainians ought to be able to shoot back. nick: emma ashford, do you think the ukrainians should be able to shoot back, again, with u.s. weapons? emma ashford, stimson center: i think that we need to be drawing a distinction here. i think, when it comes to kharkiv and the question of a

conventional conflict that is being fought effectively across the border, that is one thing. and i think that's something that the united states might want to look at lifting some of those restrictions. where i have substantially more concerns, however, is on this long-range strike capability. ukraine has been using other non-american weapons to engage in a campaign of striking russian refineries, factories, et cetera. and i worry, and i think the white house is very worried, that allowing ukraine to use u.s. weapons to do that would be very escalatory. nick: so, bill taylor, that distinction, you guys both agree that perhaps u.s. weapons should be used against, for example, russian artillery parked right on the border that are attacking vovchansk. but the concern, as emma ashford puts it, that it could escalate if you allow the strikes to go further, what's your response to that? william: so, i think the russians have escalated in conventional terms as much as they can. i mean, there's nothing -- they're not holding back. they're using everything they have got. they're not using nuclear

weapons, and they probably won't. probably won't. there are all kinds of reasons why they wouldn't. but they -- there's no room now for escalation. and emma's right. the ukrainians are shooting deep with their own drones. those drones are not strong. they are not heavy. they can't do real damage to airfields. if they're very good and very precise, they can do some damage to an airplane. but these weapons -- and emma's also right. the brits have already allowed them to use these storm shadows. and nothing happened. i think we should let them do that. nick: what about that point, emma ashford, that the brits changed the red line, so to speak, and nothing happened, russians didn't respond, and that russia is at the kind of p of its ability to escalate? emma: so whether or not we agree that it should be the case, i think the russians very much do see a difference between the united states doing something and european countries doing something. when it comes to the idea that the russians cannot escalate any further, i'm much more skeptical

on that. we talk a lot about the nuclear question, but that's not really the concern here. we're talking about potential sabotage that we're starting to see in western european states. there was a fire in poland just this week that was attributed potentially to russian agents. we're talking about potential escalation to a broader russian-nato war, something that comes across the border. so i think we are telling ourselves very convenient untruths when we say that the russians don't have any means to escalate against us. nick: bill taylor, can russia escalate against nato directly, whether conventionally or, as emma ashford points out, in the hybrid ways that they have done for years? william: deterrence works, nick. deterrence has worked. the russians -- mr. putin is not suicidal. he knows that, if he attacks nato, he loses. he loses quickly and devastatingly. that's deterrence.

that deterrence is there. it's also deterrence when jake sullivan made itery clear more than a year ago that, if the russians thought about using tactical nuclear weapons in ukraine, there would be catastrophic consequences. those words were well thought out. that was not a throwaway line from jake sullivan, catastrophic consequences. that's deterrence, and i think it works. nick: and xi jinping, in fact, actually threatened putin about nuclear weapons. but, emma ashford, bottom line, do you think russia is deterred? emma: i think russia is deterred from direct attacks on nato territory, but i do think we're seeing an increasing willingness to escalate kind of under that level of conventional conflict. and i do just want to note that i think we need to put this question of long-range strikes in the context of the other steps that the u.s. and western allies have taken, increasing the number of weapons systems that have been sent, increasing the ways in which ukraine can fight back against russia, and then talking about things like

u.s. advisers in the conflict or western troops behind the lines. these are things that sort of move forward in a consistent upward cycle of escalation, and, at some point, it is entirely possible that we could cross some russian red lines. so we do have to be very cautious, and i credit the white house for being cautious on this. nick: i want to zoom out in about the minute-and-a-half that i have left. so, you each have about 45 seconds to answer this question. how does this war, do you believe, end? william: it depends on us. it depends on us. as emma just said, if we can provide a lot of weapons to the ukrainians so that they can push, they can stabilize the line right now, and then eventually next year, probably, they can push them back. if it's clear that the ukrainians are not going to stop fighting, which it is, and if it's clear the europeans will continue to support the ukrainians, which they are so far, and we have just demonstrated that we're going to supply them with $61 billion and more, presumably, after that, if that is clear to president putin that he cannot win, that's how

it ends. nick: emma ashford, 45 seconds? emma: i'm not sure that he nick: and can putin be convinced that he can't win? and, therefore, should the west get to the point where ukraine can win? emma: i am not convinced that this is sustainable for five or seven years or whatever long-term we're talking about, but i do believe that the ukrainians with the western help that's already committed can deny the russians additional gains and convince putin that he cannot achieve anything else on the battlefield, and that is the point at which you start looking for a negotiated settlement. so that's how i think we finally do start to move towards a settlement in this conflict. nick: emma ashford, ambassador bill taylor, thank you very much to you both. william: thank you, nick. benefic: here are the latest headlines. president biden plans to

designate kenya as a major non-nato ally. mr. biden made the announcement as he hosted kenyan president william ruto at the white house today. it's the first official state visit to the u.s. by an african leader in more than 15 years. president biden also thanked ruto for deploying kenyan forces to combat the violence in haiti, and he defended his decision to withhold u.s. troops. pres. biden: haiti is in a area of the caribbean that is very volatile. there's a lot going on in this hemisphere, and we're in a situation where we want to do all we can without us looking like america once again is stepping over and deciding this is what must be done. vanessa: president biden also addressed the decision this week by the international criminal court to seek arrest warrants for israel's prime minister and defense minister, as well as three hamas leaders. two senate committees have

launched an investigation into donald trump's reported offer to roll back president biden's environmental policies in exchange for $1 billion in campaign donations. the new york times reported that mr. trump made the proposition at a meeting with top u.s. oil executives last month. the house oversight committee is also seeking information related to the april 11 fund-raiser. louisiana lawmakers passed a bill today that would reclassify two abortion-inducing medications as controlled and dangerous substances. the measure would impose fines and even jail time for those in possession of the drugs without a prescription. doctors say the bill could make it harder to prescribe the pills, which have other critical health care uses. it now goes to louisiana's republican governor for final approval. he has previously expressed support for it. hello signed today by california's democratic governor gavin newsom which allows -- is

meant to circumvent arizona's ban on nearly all abortions. that law passed in 1864 has since been repealed, but won't be reversed until later this year. in the meantime, california's stopgap measure will stand till the end of november. in northern mexico, nine people are dead and more than 100 others injured after a stage collapsed on a crowd during a campaign rally in heavy winds. cell phone videos showed the twisted pile of large metal pillars, which had trapped attendees underneath. the long-shot presidential candidate who hosted the event, jorge alvarez maynez, had to run for cover. >> it was a very atypical event, because, normally, the weather gives some warning as it intensifies. what we experienced happened in just a few seconds. a gale came, a sudden wind, and, unfortunately, it collapsed the stage, resulting in a fatal accident.

manasseh: -- vanessa: one child is among those killed. an official investigation is now -- u.s. weather officials are predicting that this year's atlantic hurricane season will be extraordinary. the national oceanic and atmospheric administration expects up to 25 named storms, the most they have ever forecast in may. the agency says contributing factors include record height water surface temperatures that fuel storms and expected la nina weather pattern this year, which reduces high-altitude winds that can break up hurricanes. the ncaa and the five power conferences have agreed to pay players directly. the ncaa will pay nearly $2.8 billion to both current and past athletes to settle multiple antitrust cases. the deal must still be approved by federal judge. and the women's national basketball association is going international. the league announced today that it will expand to toronto, its first franchise outside of the u.s.

the wnba's commissioner said of -- the expansion team, which has not yet been named, is set to begin playing in 2026. still to come, congress grills university leaders over there handling's of campus protest against the war in gaza. massive, invasive goldfish threatened the great lakes fragile ecosystem. and a new documentary explores the history and cultural impact of twitter. >> this is the "pbs newshour" from weta studios in washington, and in the west, from the walter cronkite school of journalism at arizona state university. geoff: the department of justice want the courts to break up live nation, the parent company of ticketmaster and the biggest concert promoter in the u.s.. it has long face intense scrutiny over prices for concerts by major artists. one of the most notable cases

recently, tickets for taylor swift's eras tour, when ticketmaster's web site crashed during a presale and led to a widespread outcry. the company blamed high demand. but swifties suspected foul play, as tickets quickly vanished, only to reappear on resale sites at much higher prices. u.s. attorney general merrick garland laid out his case today. merrick garland, u.s. attorney general: our complaint makes clear what happens when a monopolist dedicates its resources to entrenching its monopoly power and insulating itself from competition, rather than investing in better products and services. we allege that live nation has illegally monopolized markets across the live concert industry in the united states for far too long. it is time to break it up. geoff: more than two dozen states and the district of columbia have joined the lawsuit. and that includes california. rob bonta is the state's attorney general, and he joins us now. welcome to the "newshour.” >> thanks for having me, geoff. geoff: so, as we mentioned, you

are one of dozens of state attorneys general supporting this lawsuit. why? rob bonta: because it's important for us as a regulator to make sure that we have a free, fair, lawful marketplace with competition, where monopolistic behavior, anticompetitive behavior doesn't distort the market and manipulate the market and bend the market to its will. live nation can be a very successful company and follow the law. right now, they're not doing that. their conduct is illegal and unlawful and they're not allowed to do it. so, in the interest of supporting a free and fair marketplace, making sure that consumers have a better experience with higher quality and lower prices, making sure that artists are able to choose the promoter that they want, instead of being forced to choose live nation, making sure that concert venues are able to pick the ticketing vendor that they want, and not be forced to pick a ticketmaster, in the

interest -- and to allow for start-ups and entrepreneurs and new entrants to the market to actually enter the market and compete. that's why we're bringing this case. it's an example of ensuring that monopolistic, anticompetitive behavior does not invade our marketplace and that our marketplace is free, fair and open to competition. geoff: well, our team reached out to live nation for comment. and they told us this. "calling ticketmaster a monopoly may be a p.r. win for the doj in the short term, but it will lose in court because it ignores the basic economics of live entertainment, such as the fact that the bulk of service fees go to venues and that competition has steadily eroded ticketmaster's market share and profit margin.” so they're basically saying that the ticket prices reflect the cost of doing business these days. how do you respond to that? rob bonta: if live nation was not involved in monopolistic behavior and anticompetitive conduct, they have nothing to worry about. i don't think that deflection or pointing the finger elsewhere is

the most productive approach here. we have a coalition of state, federal and a district of columbia -- and a district entity coming together, 29 states, as well as the federal government, bipartisan. we have texas and california together involved in this suit who looked at the facts and applied the law and concluded the same thing, that live nation is involved in illegal conduct and it cannot continue. i think it's important for live nation to look at its conduct. they have failed to follow the conditions of the merger from 2010. they are forcing artists to use them as a promoter, instead of allowing artists to choose whatever promoter they want and have live nation compete for it in a competitive environment. they're forcing venues to use ticketmaster, and only ticketmaster, a vendor that is very frustrating to fans, who

know how low quality it is and, as mentioned earlier in this piece, led to a web site crash, when folks were trying to access their beloved concert and to see taylor swift. i think the conduct speaks for itself. when you apply the law, the federal sherman act, they're violating both sections 1 and section 2, and that's why we brought this lawsuit, because we felt we had no other choice to protect consumers and create a free, competitive marketplace. geoff: to your point about preserving competition in the free market, what do you say to people who might view this as government intervention in the free market? rob bonta: government has a role in creating a free market. it's not an anything goes, no holds barred market where you can use violence and you can use illegal tactics and actions. it is incumbent on the regulators, the referees, if you will, to ensure that the rules are being followed. there are rules to our marketplace. there are things that are illegal and not allowed. and, unfortunately, live nation

is involved in some of those actions that are unlawful. we have had antitrust law, prohibitions on monopolistic conduct and the anticompetitive conduct, rules of the free marketplace road that have existed for decades, for centuries. they still exist. they have to be followed. so it's not anything goes, the bigger -- the companies can use their size, their dominance, their control to squeeze out competition, to prevent the mom-and-pop, the entrepreneur with a great idea from creating competition. that can't -- that's not allowed. and so we're just ensuring the rules are being followed. and then the market, competition will determine what happens next. but the most important thing is to make sure the rules are being followed, there's no unlawful conduct. that's why we brought this case. geoff: california attorney general rob bonta, thanks again for joining us this evening. rob bonta: thanks for having me.

♪ geoff: the u.s. supreme court ruled today that south carolina republicans did not unlawfully consider race when drawing a district that removed thousands of black voters. in a 6-3 decision, the court's conservative majority delivered a win to gop state officials who said they used politics, not race, as the key factor when drawing the district boundaries. the decision could have major implications for future cases looking at racial representation in congressional maps. our supreme court watcher, marcia coyle, joins us now. it's great to have you here, as always, marcia. marcia: good to be here, geoff. geoff: so the majority opinion was written by justice samuel alito, part of which reads: "no direct evidence supports the district court's finding that race predominated in the design of district 1.” it continues: "the circumstantial evidence falls far short of showing that race, not partisan preferences, drove the districting process.” explain the decision here, how they arrived at it.

marcia: these are complex cases because of the close link between race and political party. and the challengers had to unwind that to show that race predominated. that's the test under the 14th amendment. if race predominates, it's -- the plan is unconstitutional. and the trial court had a nine-day trial, hundreds of exhibits, witnesses, and had findings of fact that this district plan was unconstitutional. and justice alito, in the majority opinion, which the court reviews for clear error -- was the trial judge's fact-finding clearly erroneous? he said it was. and he disputed all the evidence. but there were two things he said that were sort of new here, very new here. he said, one, that the trial court only paid lip service to a presumption of good faith on the part of the state legislature that drew the map.

and also, he said that if you don't have direct evidence, if you don't have a smoking gun, you have to show an alternative map -- the challengers have to show an alternative map that keeps the partisan benefits that the state was seeking and a better racial balance. and they didn't, because the district court didn't require it at the time. the dissent led by justice kagan said that justice alito, in the majority opinion, had turned upside down the court's clear error analysis, that, when trial judges engage in fact-finding like this, the court gives heavy deference to the trial court's fact-finding, because they're there. they see the witnesses. it's a different way of analyzing these cases. it will make it much harder for challengers to what they consider racial gerrymanders in the future. geoff: i want to ask you about that, because our team spoke with leah aden of the naacp legal defense fund. she argued this case before the court, and she and other advocates say that this case is textbook racial gerrymandering.

>> more than 30,000 black charlestonians were bleached out of congressional district 1 and moved into neighboring congressional district 6, which was already serving as a functional district for black voters. that harms black charlestonians who were bleached out, because they continue to live and work along the coastal south carolina and they continue to need representatives who will speak to their needs. geoff: so she and other advocates make the point that it will be easier for partisan map makers to draw congressional maps that disfavor black voters so long as they show that they're focused on politics and not race. marcia: it's important to note that the court's conservative majority has for some time now, and justice alito, in particular, they have been making it more difficult for challengers to racial gerrymanders and also to challenges under the voting rights act section 2. in fact, justice alito wrote an opinion very recently in an

arizona case in which he set up a whole new structure for section 2 challenges. and so it's just going to be more difficult. geoff: while you're here, i want to ask you about the supreme court's latest ethics controversy, given this reporting by the new york times that this appeal to heaven flag was seen flying outside justice alito's vacation home. that comes on the heels of earlier new york times reporting that an inverted american flag was seen flying outside his home after the election. these are symbols that are used by insurrectionists and by election deniers, also a lot of ethics questions around clarence thomas. what does the frequency and significance of these incidents say about the court's impartiality and the justices obligation to at least appear neutral? marcia: geoff, i had to say, when i saw the flag, the two flags, i wanted to call justice alito up and say, what were you thinking? because it's just something -- it's incomprehensible. i think of chief john roberts

and justice kagan as -- until i hear otherwise, as examples of being so careful about where they deliver speeches, where they appear, what they do. and yet justice thomas and justice alito recently with these reports just -- and no real response to what's happening, appear impervious to how the public might be viewing it. geoff: marcia coyle, it's always a pleasure to draw on your insights. thanks so much. marcia: my pleasure, geoff. geoff: we're going to focus more closely now on that new york times reporting about that appeal to heaven flag seen flying outside supreme court justice samuel alito's new jersey beach home last year. the flag has origins dating to the revolutionary war, but is now associated with christian nationalism and efforts to overturn president biden's 2020 election win. the flag was also carried by rioters at the u.s. capitol on january 6, 2021. our white house correspondent,

laura barron-lopez, has been covering this and joins us now. so, laura, you have reported on this flag before, but tell us more about how it's become popularized in recent years. laura: as you noted, geoff, this flag dates back to the revolutionary war. it was used by the colonies a lot during that war, but now it's connotation have changed. it's very different. and in recent years, it was popularized by a pastor named dutch sheets, a leader in what's known as the new apostolic reformation, and they believe that it's destiny for the u.s. to be a completely christian nation. and i spoke to matthew taylor, an expert on christian nationalism and a protestant pastor with institute -- a protestant scholar -- excuse me -- with the institute of islamic christian and jewish studies. and he described the modern symbolism of that flag. matthew taylor, institute of islamic christian and jewish studies: i would say it has become a symbol of right-wing christian extremism, of christian supremacy, of aggressive christian nationalism, especially built

around ideas of spiritual warfare and fighting against the demons that they believe have taken over the united states. so it attaches itself to all these different things, and it especially connotes support for donald trump. and, today, to fly the flag is, in many ways, to reference january 6, to point back to this other moment where people believed that they were appealing to heaven to see an election overturned. laura: so, as taylor says, the flag was popularized by the new apostolic reformation, but it has become much bigger to represent the 2020 election lies. geoff: well, tell me more about this movement and how it's grown. laura: so leaders in the new apostolic reformation, like dutch sheets, who i mentioned, who helped popularize the flag, are strong supporters of donald trump. they were some of the first christian leaders to rally around him in 2016. and this movement, specifically, just to expand on that, geoff, believes in christian supremacy, believes that christianity should be the official religion

of the united states, ending any separation of church and state, and trying to enact their vision of a christian society. and as the popularity of that new apostolic reformation has grown, so has trump's popularity amongst christians and evangelicals. and these christian nationalists have essentially worked since 2015, matthew taylor said, to get more republican lawmakers and government officials to fly this flag. and as we reported earlier this year, house speaker mike johnson has this appeal to heaven flag, has -- has put it outside of his capitol hill office. and johnson's office told us at the time that they did not see any affiliation with january 6 in him putting this flag outside of their office. they denied that wholeheartedly and said that the speaker simply liked the historical -- the history of the flag going back to the revolutionary area. but key context here, geoff, is that there's always been an undercurrent of violence attributed to this flag, whether it's the revolutionary war history, but more commonly now, which is that this movement that has really popularized it

believes in spiritual warfare. geoff: well, unpack the context around this inverted american flag that, according to the new york times, was seen flying outside justice alito's virginia home shortly after the election. laura: that flag, which was an upside-down american flag, was also a flag that was carried by rioters on january 6. and that flag was flown outside alito's virginia home 11 days after the insurrection, three days before president biden's inauguration. and it flew for multiple days out there, according to the new york times. and i spoke to jodi kantor for "pbs news weekend" a few days ago, and she said that alito hasn't answered some key questions, whether it's about he doesn't believe in the peaceful transfer of power, if he is or isn't aware of the connotations around that upside-down flag. geoff: so how does this fit into

the bigger picture of right-wing extremism? laura: so there were two other examples of extremism from trump and his allies this week, geoff, that we want to highlight. and on his truth social account, trump posted a video that referenced a -- quote -- "unified reich" if he's elected in november. trump's campaign said that that was reposted by a staffer, it wasn't a video that campaign created and that they weren't aware of that reference in the video. but this isn't the first time, geoff, that trump has echoed nazi germany. he has repeatedly talked about migrants -- quote -- "poisoning the blood of the country" on the campaign trail, which historians point out that that is a direct reference to adolf hitler and his use of the terms blood poisoning. and then trump took to truth social also this week, claiming that the justice department authorized the use of deadly force against him during their search of mar-a-lago, claiming that biden's fbi wanted to assassinate him.

and so i spoke to a yale historian, timothy snyder, who said, when you look at this in the big scale of things, geoff, that ultimately trump's comments about biden trying to -- his fbi trying to assassinate him is essentially a classic tactic used by fascist movements, that they want to get a monopoly on victimhood, so that way they can justify any actions they take, whether it's overturning an election or using violence against their enemy. geoff: all right, let's pivot a bit, because donald trump picked up the support of nikki haley this past week. how does that remake the electoral landscape, so far as we kno laura: i spoke to geoff duncan, the former lieutenant governor of georgia. he's a republican who says that he's going to vote for biden. he said he doesn't think this ultimately will sway that many of those nikki haley moderate republican voters, that he believes that there are still a strong segment of them that could be persuaded to vote for biden. biden's campaign is going after them and says that they are going to hire a staff, they told me, to specifically target moderate republicans and

independents that are nikki haley supporters. geoff: laura barron-lopez, thanks so much. we appreciate it. laura: thank you. geoff: college presidents were grilled again today by the house education committee. the committee has held a series of hearings about antisemitism and protests, often focusing on private ivy league schools. the blowback to these hearings has led in part to the departure of some presidents. today, the committee's focus shifted to include public universities, but some of the same tensions and allegations played out during a tense hearing. ali rogin has our report. ali: a contentious morning on capitol hill. michael schill, president, northwestern university: i want to question the premise of your question. >> no, no, no, no, i'm asking the questions. you're answering. ali: university leaders were in washington today to testify again about how their schools have handled protests and antisemitic incidents. this time, it was the leaders of

ucla, rutgers and northwestern universities. this latest hearing comes after weeks of encampments, demonstrations and crackdowns across the country. almost 3,000 protesters have been arrested since april. >> october 7 ignited a powder keg of pro-terror campus fervor, a shocking spectacle for the american public. ali: virginia foxx is the chair of the committee who has led the series of hearings about colleges. rep. virginia foxx: each of you should be ashamed of your decisions that allowed antisemitic encampments to endanger jewish students. ali: republican lawmakers focused much of their attention today on the encampments and the efforts to dismantle them. in the case of rutgers and northwestern, their presidents were able to work out agreements with pro-palestinian protesters. michael schill: bringing in police because of the size of our police force and the resources would have endangered our police, they would have endangered our students, and they would have endangered our student affairs staff. so then we made the decision to

talk to our students, to model the behavior that we want to be engaged in, that dialogue, rather than force, and we had a de-escalation. ali: many republicans chastised the university leaders for negotiating with protesters, instead of handing out expulsions. >> you agreed to the demands of those who are trying to change university policy in an antisemitic way, and you rewarded their tactics of using force. ali: at ucla last month, violence by counterprotesters with israeli flags against the pro-palestinian encampment went on for hours before campus police responded. the lapd and the california highway patrol were called in later. the campus police chief was reassigned from his position earlier this week. representative ilhan omar of minnesota lit into ucla chancellor gene block. >> why did you not immediately send the police that were

standing by, your campus police, law enforcement, to intervene? gene block, ucla chancellor: we tried. we notified -- as soon as we saw the violence, we notified all of our mutual aid partners. we tried to get police there as quickly as possible. >> you should be ashamed in the fact that you failed your students. you should be ashamed for letting a peaceful protest gathering get hijacked by an angry mob. ali: the encampment at ucla was removed last month, but, today, protesters erected a new blockade. there was another key difference with this hearing from earlier ones. public schools like ucla and rutgers don't have the latitude to restrict free speech, the same way private universities do. gene block: as a public university, ucla is subject to a dual legal mandate, the first amendment obligation to protect free speech on campus and the obligation under federal laws to protect students from discrimination and harassment. this balance is often difficult to achieve.

ali: once again, lawmakers, mostly republicans, hammered college officials over what they saw as inadequate discipline for some students and faculty, especially for any antisemitic remarks or conduct. rutgers' president holloway said four students were suspended, while northwestern and ucla said investigations were ongoing. michael schill: we didn't -- have not yet suspended or expelled students. it does not mean that students have not received discipline. ali: schill said northwestern terminated some staff, while rutgers and ucla said disciplinary proceedings were ongoing. for his part, holloway pushed back at the description of his school. >> submit i certainly disagreed that -- with the characterization of rutgers being a hotbed of antisemitism. we do everything we can to promote the security and safety of all of our students and to have a community of care. ali: protests may have died down at many campuses as the school year draws to a close, but many commencement ceremonies have been canceled or interrupted by

protesters. at harvard today, hundreds of students walked out of commencement chanting "free palestine.” for the "pbs newshour," i'm ali rogin. geoff: for many people, it's their first pet, the humble goldfish. swimming in a tank in your house, it's hard to imagine it's much of a threat. but when released into a great lake, a goldfish can imperil the fragile ecosystem of the largest freshwater system in the world. christopher booker has the story. >> yes, you can pull the bottom board. christopher: ecologist andrea court is beginning another day at the cootes paradise fishway in hamilton, ontario. sitting between lake ontario and the cootes paradise marsh, this fishway acts as a border wall for fish. the goal? to keep invasive species out of this marsh, an important spawning and nursery area for

native fish. andrea: we have a series of baskets or cages that are underwater. so we have a crane. it lifts the basket, dumps them into a container, and then we sort the fish. at that point, i can decide which way the fish are going to go. christopher: with the flick of a wrist, court sends native fish, like this channel catfish, into the marsh to spawn. invasives, like this common carp, aren't so lucky. way andrea: we turn away anywhere from about 2,000, in recent years, to 9,000 carp. christopher: and when you say turn away, you send them back? andrea: yes, i send them back to the harbor, yes. they get denied entry into the marsh. christopher: when the fishway began operation in 1997, the main concern was invasive carp, which exploded in population in the marsh, displacing native fish and depleting aquatic plants. but in the past decade, as carp populations have declined, a gilded icon of childhood pets has been making a splash. andrea: so, here we go. here's a goldfish. it seemed like we moved the carp out and the goldfish kind of moved in.

so starting in 2013 was really when we started seeing more numbers, higher numbers of them. christopher: but these goldfish don't look like the friendly little guys swimming in tanks at your local pet shop. even their trademark color, bred into them in captivity, can disappear in the wild. this is a goldfish, but it's not gold. andrea: well, it's not very advantageous to be bright orange in the wild. and so this is more of its natural color. it can obviously be much more camouflaged. christopher: kept in a bowl and fed a controlled diet, goldfish are small, unassuming pets. but when they're released into lakes and ponds like this one, they gain access to an endless supply of food, and they can grow into large, destructive pests. >> they do grow quite large. so i think the world record is nine pounds, you christopher: nine pounds? john: nine pounds. john: but the biggest one that we have seen here is around 40 centimeters, so about half that size. christopher: jon midwood is a research scientist with the great lakes laboratory for fisheries and aquatic sciences. he says these feral goldfish, which researchers estimate could number into the tens of millions

in the great lakes alone, most likely originate from home fish tanks. john: what we think is happening is that people have goldfish at home, have them in their aquarium, and when they're done, they don't quite know what to do. and so they release them into the natural environment, because they don't want to kill that fish that they do love. the same features or adaptations of goldfish that let them really thrive at home in that that bowl that sits on a shelf and doesn't get any new water for a while, isn't cleaned, those same adaptations let them thrive in these systems that are pretty degraded. christopher: he says goldfish are not only competing with native fish, but literally muddying the water around them. john: what goldfish can do is, they will actually disturb the substrate or the sediment and mix it up, and it gets all murky and turbid, and that stops the vegetation from growing. they're one of the most challenging fishes to have in the system. there's other aquatic invasive species here, but we think goldfish are likely to have in the near future the biggest impact on that goal of trying to recover the aquatic vegetation. christopher: midwood says he would like to see these invasive goldfish euthanized, but there's simply no safe and affordable way to do so, because of the

contaminants they carry as bottom-feeders in an industrial waterway. john: those fish pick up a lot of those contaminants. and so, if you're trying to remove them, there have been challenges in the past in terms of, where do you dispose of them? because they have heavy concentrations of things like pcbs and metals. once an aquatic invasive species is in your system, you can't do much other than try to keep its numbers down. and so the best path is really prevention. christopher: but pet owners grappling with unwanted fish are often faced with a dilemma. neilee irwin, fish owner: i had asked a few people that had ponds if they wanted them, but nobody wanted them, so i really didn't know what i was going to do with them. christopher: across the border in erie, pennsylvania, neilee irwin was the reluctant owner of an unusually named goldfish that was quickly outgrowing its tank. neilee: he was named that one, because every time someone would come in the house, they would just go, "that one." and i'm like, yes, that's his name. he's the hugest. christopher: under the right conditions, goldfish can actually live up to 30 to 40 years. and this can leave their owners in deep water. that's why the erie zoo started

a one-of-a-kind pet project last year. heather gula, education director, erie zoo: this is the last chance lagoon. this is the main pond. christopher: the last chance lagoon gives unwanted goldfish and koi a luxurious new home, a 23,000-gallon tank in the heart of the zoo. but according to erie zoo's heather gula, the primary function of the project is to educate the public. heather: we want to teach them about invasives because that is a big problem on the great lakes. we also want to teach them about proper pet care and expectations. that is something that a lot of zoos work on educating the public about, because you have a lot of people that want exotic pets or bring in some of those that they just don't know how to care for. christopher: the last chance lagoon intake forms tell the story of floundering fish owners. heather: this ones name is pumpkin bob. the owner did not realize how long they would live. they did get pumpkin bob at a fair, and he was living in a one gallon tank. christopher: along with about 50 other fish, pumpkin bob is now tank-mates with irwin's fish that one, who's been living in the lagoon since last fall. heather: it's that one.

be free. neilee: they needed something better. so i was very, very grateful, very grateful that i could put him in here, and now i can visit him. christopher: one less goldfish to wreak havoc in the wild. for the "pbs newshour," i'm christopher booker at the last chance lagoon in erie, pennsylvania. geoff: finally tonight: a new documentary captures the power, promise and challenges of what's long been known as black twitter. amna nawaz has that for our arts and culture series, canvas, and our coverage of race matters. amna: before it was x, it was twitter, a hub for breaking news, commentary and hot takes. and in its early days, one subculture, black twitter, became a driving force in defining pop culture, creating trending hashtags, unforgettable memes, and even sparking social justice movements. a new docuseries on hulu looks

at the history, the impact and the legacy of black twitter. woman: you know you're black when you cancel plans when it's raining. man: you know you're black when you wear tall tees. amna: the director and executive producer of "black twitter: a people's history" is prentice penny. and he joins me now. prentice, welcome to the "newshour." thanks for joining us. your prentice penny, director, "black twitter: a people's history": thank you. happy to be here. amna: so this is based on a wired article from 2021 that jason parham wrote. he's in the documentary, and he's also one of your co-producers on this. so this had been written about. why did you think that this story needed to be documented in this way? prentice: well, obviously, i have like a -- my own love with black twitter. i was obviously being a part of it as well. but i think as we were sort of seeing things change in terms of certain books being pulled out of schools, certain narratives about black history in this country sort of being changed or being augmented, it felt like black twitter was a place to hold things accountable. and if those things are being removed from libraries, it felt,

like, well, what else here is documenting our impact on the culture? and this felt like the right thing to do. amna: you do poke fun in the series about the idea of black twitter itself, how people on the outside looking in would ask, like, where is it? how can i find it? is it a hashtag? how do you begin to explain black twitter to anyone unfamiliar? prentice: i think black twitter is any space, at least on the platform it was at the time, where black culture got to be authentically itself and drive conversations. sometimes, typically, black culture in this country has to code-switch or be sensitive or not tell its full truth. and i feel like black twitter is a space where we got to be fully who we were and, again, drive conversations in america, especially ones that are uncomfortable. amna: why do you think it became so potent, such a cultural force? prentice: i think it became a cultural force because i think a lot of times, historically in america, black life and the

things that have mattered to black culture have sort of been over there, and you can isolate yourself from it. like, you don't have to read "essence" magazine or "ebony" magazine or you don't have to watch black shows or listen to certain music or whatever. you can kind of curate your own kind of bubble america. but, on twitter, you couldn't, right, because you could open the platform and see things that were mattering to black culture and black america up there with things that were on cnn or msnbc. so you couldn't separate yourself from what you were seeing in terms of black culture, or you had to get off the app, which was very different than facebook, which was very much curating a community you already knew. twitter was almost trying to connect strangers in a way. and, as a result of that, you have to be around people you don't know and be around things that you don't typically have maybe involved your life in. and i think that's why it became a force, because it was putting the issues that mattered to black america and black culture up there in the same way with

mainstream. amna: you cover this so beautifully in the series. there are moments of real community, right, like group-watching the show "scandal." there's moments of real joy and total comedy. i have to say the "meet me in temecula" bit had me laughing out loud. it's a story of basically a twitter brawl that spills into real life. here's a bit of how you covered it in the series. man: this man allegedly drove damn near an hour to temecula. woman: temecula valley, southern california wine country. man: he tweeted himself. he went. he went to temecula to have a fight over kobe bryant. man: we have all been in barbershops. we have all been in cookouts. and there's always the brother, the uncle, whoever, who takes the hoop argument a little too far. you don't play for the lakers, bro. amna: prentice, i'm laughing now because i remember watching this as it played out in real time. why was this a defining moment that you felt had to be included in the series? prentice: i mean, i think it's one of the moments in black

twitter, that we remember that. and i think that's some of the beauty of black twitter is these sort of real powerful moments like trayvon martin, and black lives matter and black girl magic and coexist alongside of random craziness as this. and i think that's sort of the way black life is in real life. and i think that's the way black twitter sort of can have things that feel fun and serious just coexist together. amna: you mentioned some of those serious moments. and i have to ask you about it, because black twitter is responsible for some of the most potent hashtags that actually led to real-world change in modern history, oscars so white and metoo and black lives matter. you cover in the series how activists like johnetta elzie used twitter to get the word out after the 2014 police shooting of michael brown in ferguson, missouri. take a look. johnetta elzie, activist: all i had was my twitter and my facebook. and so i just -- i felt and i really believe that someone somewhere would care about what i was saying. woman: johnetta elzie was in the

streets of ferguson. her threads and tweets in that moment are history. amna: prentice, without twitter and without black journalists and activists using it the way that they did, do you think the world would know the names of michael brown and breonna taylor and george floyd the way that we all do? prentice: no, i don't think we would. and i think there's something about black twitter that hearkens back to the way that my mother and my father talked about the civil rights movement. i think about phrases like "we shall overcome" and "i had a dream, i have a dream" and "i am a man," go -- like coexisting alongside with things like black lives matter and black girls magic and "say her name" and things like that. and so, again, it was -- it's such a force in terms of changing america. and i feel like i'm so excited and so proud of what happened and really excited for the generations to come, because, again, my children aren't on the platform because they're just too young, but they're 14 and 16, but they are moving through the world, already hearing phrases like that, expressions like that in their lexicon and

they move that way. so i'm just really proud and excited that everything that black twitter has done and continues to do in the real world too. amna: well, as we mentioned, it's not twitter anymore, right? it is x. what does elon musk moving in, buying the platform and changing the rules, what does that mean for this conversation and for black twitter? prentice: i think it's super dangerous, right? i think any time someone can come in and buy a platform that some people in society have used as a microphone or as a way to get the message out and he doesn't need to make money on it and can disassemble the platform is problematic, right? and i think you have seen ways in which he's fired a lot of people. a lot of hate has -- a lot of hate speech has jumped up like 4000%. yes, i think it just proved how good of a microphone and amplification it was for voices that have been marginalized. so it's super dangerous. amna: well, all three parts of "black twitter: a people's history" are available to stream right now on hulu. executive producer and director prentice penny, thank you so much for joining us.

it's been a real pleasure. prentice: thank you for having me. geoff: and that is newshour for tonight. for all of us here at the pbs newshour, thanks for spending part of your evening with us. >> major funding for the "pbs newshour" has been provided by. the ongoing support of these individuals and institutions, and friends of the "newshour," including leonard and norma klorfine, and the judy and peter blum kovler foundation. >> a law partner rediscovers her grandmother's artistry and creates a trust to keep the craft alive. a raymondjames financial advisor gets to know you, your passions, and the way you enrich your community. life well planned. >> cunard is a proud supporter of public television. on a voyage with cunard, the world awaits.

a world of flavor, diverse destinations, and immersive experiences. a world of leisure, and british style. all with cunard's white star service. >> the ford foundation, working with visionaries on the front lines of social change worldwide. and with the ongoing support of these institutions. and friends of the "newshour." this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute,

which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy.] >> this is the "pbs newshour" west from weta studios in washington, and from the walter cronkite school of journalism at arizona state university.

wow, you get to watch all your favorite stuff. it's to die for. now you won't miss a thing. this is the way. xfinity internet. made for streaming. ♪♪ -"cook's country" is about more than just getting dinner on the table. we're also fascinated by the people and stories behind the dishes. we go inside kitchens in every corner of the country to learn how real people cook, and we look back through time to see how history influences the way we eat today.