geoff: good evening. i'm geoff bennett. amna nawaz is away. on the "newshour" tonight, unrest grips the streets of israel as its parliament approves a measure to weaken the country's judiciary. new findings reveal startling connections between gun ownership, young americans, and white supremac and, ups workers threaten to strike if union negotiations fail. a move that would ripple through the economy. >> nobody wants to go on a strike. but at the same time, look what's happening with the company making all these profits and we're not getting none of the piece of the cake. ♪ >> major funding for the pbs

newshour has been provided by -- the ongoing support of these individuals and institutions. and friends of the newshour, including -- the william and flora hewitt foundation. advancing ideas and supporting institutions to promote a better world. 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: good evening and welcome to the "newshour." israel is in an uproar tonight after the country's parliament backed a controversial plan to overhaul the judicial system by passing a law that weakens the powers of the courts. the measure has divided that nation, sparked mass protests, and drawn rare criticism from the white house. stephanie sy starts our coverage. stephanie: today, chaos. opposition lawmakers chanting "shame" and stormed out in protest ahead of the vote. with nearly half the seats empty, the measure won 64-0. there are 120 seats. the prime minister netanyahu

praised the passage. >> today, we performed a necessary democratic step to bring a balance between the branches so the government can lead according to decisions of the majority. stephanie: the opposition condemned the change in strongest terms. >> i look at the coalition celebrating and asked, what are you celebrating? but you are dismantling the jewish state? you are celebrity the moment they threw everything that connects us into the dustbin of history. stephanie: today's vote cap a month-long campaign by israel's far right government to take away the supreme court's power to block government decisions and appointments. for the past 29 weeks, tens of thousands of israelis have taken to the streets, opposing the overhaul. early today, demonstrators tied themselves together, blocking the road. >> we are here to protect our democracy. we were left with no choice but to go to disobedience,

nonviolent disobedience. stephanie: thousands march to the 45 miles from tel aviv to jerusalem, while businesses shut down in protest. adding to the mayhem, netanyahu was rushed to the hospital sunday for an emergency pacemaker implant. that did not halt negotiations. but a weekend of last-ditch efforts to reach an agreement came up dry. >> with this government, we cannot reach an agreement that safeguards israel's democracy. we will not give this up. geoff: yahoo! had postponed -- stephanie: netanyahu postponed the vote in march. many allies abroad urged compromise, including president biden. >> like many strong supporters, i'm very concerned. i'm concerned that they get this. they cannot continue. i made that clear. stephanie: months went by without any signs of hope, and

demonstrators returned to the streets. a key group leading the protest, tens of thousands of military reservists who for months threatened to resign if the bill pushed through. >> it is heartbreaking, really. i am so sad, i cannot even express it with words. stephanie: omer denk, with nearly three decades of service, is now a reservist. for the last six months, he has been out in the streets protesting the judicial overhaul, having flown risky and legally scrutinized missions. he says he would hesitate to serve if he can't trust the government's orders. >> we are bombing targets in very crowded places in gaza. and you could kill a lot of noninvolvement, collateral damage from are bombing. you need to know that the decisions are strictly lawful.

stephanie: reservists are critical, leaving many of the strikes in gaza and syria, and flying surveillance missions. military leaders say a mass resignation would hurt the nation's military readiness. >> nobody knows what will be tomorrow, i think. i think it will be a very long and very difficult period for the israeli army. stephanie: so far, half of israelis top commando unit has announced they will stop serving. reservist omer denk says his time may come soon. >> if the government will keep following their plans, i will not be able to keep my duty anymore. so, what is the weather in israel society every day. stephanie: with today's vote

fueling anger, the forecast calls for continued instability. for the pbs newshour, i'm stephanie sy. geoff: for more on the new law passed in israel and the impact it will have, we turn to yohan plesner. he's the president of the israel democracy institute, an israeli think tank. he's also a former member of the israeli knesset and was the first secretary-general of the centrist kadima party. thank you for being with us. >> thanks for having me. geoff: netanyahu backed off trying to push through these changes earlier this year. what changed? because the opposition is as massive as it ever was. yohan: we are seeing there are two coming to the fore this evening who are equally powerful and in many ways conflicting. on the one hand, the most massive, impressive protest that this country has ever seen. seven months of millions of israelis coming out to the streets, hundreds of thousands every evening just for the past

week. it has been taking place for months. israelis are very passionate about their democracy, are opposed to this overhaul, and they have been expressing it in multiple creative ways throughout the past months. at the same time, we have seen a coalition, that although it does not have majority support among many people, it is extremely adamant in pushing forward this judicial overhaul that is fundamentally designed to change the system of checks and balances that characterizes israeli democracy, and to concentrate on governing powers in the hands of the executive branch. geoff: tell us more about how this overhaul actually aims to remake the court system. because as you pointed out, opponents cited weakens one of the country's few checks on power and advocates say the judiciary is too powerful and controlled by the left. yohan: israel is a democracy.

for 75 years, we had a relatively fragile democracy, but very vibrant and proud support among the israeli people. without a constitution. with our delicate system of checks and balances, there is only one institution that constrains the otherwise all-powerful executive branch. this institution, the independent judiciary, the supreme court is targeted by this overhaul. both its ability to conduct judicial review over the government, and this is what has to today, and an additional plan. this is probably very important -- this is just one chapter of an entire overhaul. when there were discussions of compromise as late as today before it passed, the government basically refused to agree that any additional constitutional changes would be legislated with a broad consensus.

this is the main point. it is something that passed today and the government intends to continue. this is why the protests are intensifying, as we are seeing this minute in the streets of jerusalem and tel aviv. geoff: the white house released a statement that says in part, president biden has publicly and privately expressed his views that major changes in a democracy to be enduring must have as broad a consensus as possible. it's unfortunate that the vote today took place with the slimmest possible majority. does israel's approach risk damaging its relationship with the u.s.? yohan: this constitutional overhaul, if not reversed, will have multiple negative effects on israeli society, on the israeli economy, security because it undermines the willingness of reservists to continue to volunteer. and of course, on our

international relations. first and foremost, the relationship, the most important relationship with our u.s. ally that is based on common values. two democracies that build this wonderful relationship for decades. of course, undermining israeli democracy would mean undermining the u.s.-israel relationship, but the world's largest democracy has a very strong partner and ally in the israeli people who are opposed to this overhaul. they are fighting to reverse it. in this respect, while the u.s. administration perhaps didn't have much audience with the israeli government, it certainly does have with the israeli people. geoff: as you mentioned, the reservists throughout the israeli defense force, some 10,000 reservists have said they refused to show up for service in protest of this move. how should we read that? yohan: the idea of the israeli

army is entirely based on solidarity, on willingness of israelis to come forward and to volunteer. this is what israeli security is based on. the fact that so many israelis that have done so much for the country have been pushed to the corner and away they feel like they have to protest in using this most difficult and "lethal" tool is a very bad sign for how the government conducted this policy. and this will mean we are entering into a chronic crisis because once the reservists pull out of service, the crisis will not end. the crisis will only end when israelis are back together, and hopefully, i look at the northern start are initiating a constitution that will bring the country back together. geoff: yohan plesner, thank you

for your time and insights this evening. yohan: thanks for having me. geoff: in the day's other headlines, a heat dome that's been hovering over the southwestern u.s. for weeks is now expanding eastward. more than million peoplefrom 80 coast to coast were under heat alerts today. and temperatures in phoenix, arizona topped 110 degrees for the 25th straight day. wildfires blazing through the greek islands have forced tourists to evacuate by the thousands. the flames reached popular vacation spots in corfu off the northwest coast and rhodes farther southeast. a bright-orange glow coated hillsides in corfu last night. and in rhodes today, emergency crews faced the inferno as beach-goers abandoned smoky resort towns. evacuees slept on the airport floor, desperate to return home.

>> we have been lying here for two days. there are no blankets, nothing. there are children lying here who need milk. there is nothing. we don't receive any information whether we will be flown home, nothing. geoff: the flames were fueled by intense winds and high weekend temperatures, which soared to 113 degrees on greece's mainland. meanwhile, forest fires in algeria have killed at least 34 people, including 10 soldiers. it's nearly 100 blazes are burning in mountainous regions of the north african country, forcing 1500 people to evacuate. some 7500 firefighters are working to get the flames under control amid a stifling heatwave. in ukraine, russian drones struck grain facilities in odesa along a critical route for ukrainian exports. social media video showed extensive damage to grain silos along the danube river. russia has expanded its air campaign after backing out of the black sea grain deal one week ago.

the deal had kept the trade route safe from the war. meantime, russia accused ukraine of striking two buildings in moscow today, including one near the defense ministry's headquarters. spain is in political limbo tonight after sunday's elections failed to yield an outright winner. the conservative popular party won 136 seats while the incumbent socialist party banked 122. meanwhile, support for the far-right vox party fell sharply. the two leading parties claimed victory last night in madrid, even though both fell short of the seats needed to secure an absolute majority. >> the backward-looking bloc of the people's party with vox has been defeated. there are many more of us who want spain to continue moving forward than pursuing the regression path of the people's party with vox. >> our obligation now is to avoid a period of uncertainty. spaniards today have put their trust in the popular party. they have also said that all the political parties across the parliament must have dialogue.

geoff: spain now faces weeks, if not months of political negotiations between the parties, and the possibility of a new election later in the year. the u.s. justice department has sued the texas governor over a floating barrier the state is using to stop migrant crossings along the u.s.-mexico border. they say governor greg abbott built the thousand-foot line of buoys on the rio grande without authorization. hours before, governor abbott sent president biden a letter refusing to remove the barrier. and, stocks climbed higher on wall street today. the dow jones industrial average gained 183 points to close at 35,411. the nasdaq rose 26 points. the s&p 500 added 18. still to come on the "newshour," former maryland governor larry hogan makes the case for third-party bids in the upcoming presidental election. what the end of affirmative action in college admissions means for long-term wealth disparities. and a look at barbie.

the good, bad, and ugly behind the famous doll. >> 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: gun violence has killed more than 24,000 people in the u.s. this year, including over 1000 people under the age of 18. laura barron-lopez looks at a report that researchers say is the first of its kind to explore young americans' attitudes on guns. laura: the study surveyed more than 4100 people between the ages of 14 and 30. among the key findings, four out of five say gun violence is a problem in the u.s., and a majority support stricter gun laws. on average, youth know at least one person who's been injured or killed by a gun and more than 40% of those surveyed have at least somewhat easy access to a gun. the report first provided to the

"newshour" was published jointly by everytown for gun safety, the southern poverty law center, and american university's polarization and extremism research and innovation lab. that lab is directed by cynthia miller idriss, who joins me now to talk about the study. cynthia, thanks for being back on the "newshour." what prompted your team to study these issues and what surprised you the most about the findings? >> well, we've been studying these issues related to extremism for several years, extremist violence, terrorist violence. and one of the things you see in the global data is that the u.s. has a disproportionate share of violent deaths by terrorism and extremism. more than about half the incidents and about half the lethality in the global data, and that's probably connected to guns, we thought, so why do we have so many firearms? how does that relate to extremist violence? was our original set of interests in this. and so, we really wanted to see how do you address these two issues together? what can we find out by

assessing some of the data and surveying young people? what most surprised me was how many young people already have access to a firearm, very easy access or somewhat easy access to a firearm. those numbers are strikingly high, some 40%, as you just noted. and then another 17% said that they plan to have access to a firearm pretty soon in the next few years. so when they're old enough or when they have the money to do it. so we found that -- i found that to be very troubling data. laura: and the study dives into youth perceptions of safety as it relates to guns. what did you find there? >> well, one of the things we found about young people is that they feel unsafe. so, they do not feel safe at school. they do not feel safe in public, essentially outside their in other public spaces, they have concerns about their safety. and i think and that's also correlating, we found, with feelings of anxiety, depression and ptsd. 25% of them have been in an ve sho or lockdown. not a drill, an actual lockdown. and so, when we think about a

generation that is hyper vigilant, essentially about the possibility of gun violence erupting sort of at any moment around them, parents are scared to send their kids to school. kids are scared about going to school and about other public spaces where they spend time. and that's a really sad fact to assess in their feelings about firearms and their safety. laura: you also found that many young people see gun culture as part of their identity. can you explain that a bit more? >> yeah, people, some of the young people in the study were very connected to a sense of gun culture, to feeling like guns made them stronger or better, or that they were really connected to who they are as individuals. and i think americans maybe have become accustomed to that. but that's pretty unique compared to other countries, our neighbors and our allies overseas who don't have that same kind of connection between a sense of who you are, especially as a young man let's say, and owning a gun or feeling like that's essential and connected to your identity. so, that's an important part of of understanding for our communities as well. laura: now, this study was about views on guns and gun violence,

but your team also explored connections between gun culture and issues like racism and male supremacy. ople surveyed were asked if they agreed with statements like "women cannot help but be attracted to those who are higher in status than they are." why track those ideas, and what correlations did you find about those views and the ones that they had on guns? >> yeah, that part of the data was also very troubling and very revealing, although not as surprising to me. so what we found is that youth who have easier access to guns, who are more committed to a kind of gun culture, also have higher scores on racial resentment and male supremacist ideas, which are the kinds of ideas that you just mentioned. what that tells us as prevention experts is that you can't address these issues on their own. you have to address issues of hostility or misogyny or racism toward others. at the same time, as you're

addressing issues of gun prevention, you can't do this in isolation from each other. laura: and how did participants views on race in particular impact their attitudes about guns? >> well, there were two different things we found. we found on the one hand, there's a correlation between their views about whether they access to guns, their views about gun culture, their views about the second amendment and having higher scores on racial resentment. so, meaning there have they hold stronger racist views. but we also found in focus groups that we did later that their perceptions of safety are highly racialized, right. they have a feeling that the places that are less safe are places with more racial diversity than the ones that they live in in their communities. so, this is a problem for many of them of over there violence, rather than thinking it's going to hit their own community, particularly for white respondents. laura: another data point that stood out to me was that 22% of those surveyed said they believe the second amendment gives individuals the right to overthrow the government. the study concludes that

"society must target supremacist and antidemocratic ideologies among this population that you surveyed that justify and rationalize the use of violence and the deployment of guns to facilitate that violence." how do you do that? >> so, one of the things we found in this data is that young people, just like older adults, are easily persuaded by false information that they encounter online persuasive, manipulative rhetoric that they might encounter about why they need a gun, who they're keeping themselves safe from, including, they think, from the government in some cases. and that actually is pretty easy to address, believe it or not, when you're when you're dealing with an issue of somebody being manipulated by content they encounter online. we can pre-bunk that with video content, with content that they review in advance and read. we can teach people to be more skeptical of the content they review online. they encounter to be more digitally literate. it just has to be done early and often. it's a part of basic strengthening of democratic

resilience and not just a catch-up afterward. laura: cynthia miller idris of american university, thank you so much. >> thank you. geoff: the bipartisan political organization no labels is considering launching a third-party unity ticket for the white house next year. that's sparked concern among democrats and anti-trump republicans that their moderate presidential ticket could serve as a spoiler in a close election by peeling off votes from joe biden and put donald trump back in the white house, if he's the republican nominee. larry hogan is the former republican governor of maryland. he's now a national co-chair of no labels. thank you for being with us. gov. hogan: thank you. geoff: you are a popular republican governor in a blue state. you were term-limited out of office. you've said you aren't seeking the republican presidential nomination in this election. in your capacity of no labels,

would you be open to a third-party ticket? gov. hogan: i have been involved in no labels for a number of years because i happen to believe very strongly in what the organization is all about. it is a citizen group that is very bipartisan. it works on bipartisan common sense solutions. i was involved in the problem solvers caucus and help to the infrastructure bill done. this new thing we are talking about is not something that is fully baked, but i understand why so many people are talking about it. because almost 70% of the people in america do not want joe biden or donald trump to be president. yet, it looks as if if the nominations were taking place today, there's a likelihood those may be the choices. no labels is talking about the idea next spring of potentially giving voters an additional choice, and they are talking about the idea of maybe bringing the country together by having a

republican and democrat running together on a unity ticket just to put the country first. geoff: the polling you mentioned does not suggest the people surveyed want or would support a third-party candidate. what is the operating assumption that no labels is using? gov. hogan: two recent polls. one showed 59% would consider a third-party candidate another set 64% would. an additional poll said if you had on the ballot today trump, biden or neither, that neither would be the winner. look, we don't know what it will look like next spring. there's a whole lot of campaigning between now and then. my focus is trying to elect a republican nominee that will be taking the party in a different direction than donald trump can be a -- and can be a candidate that can win in november. just leaving the door open for a group of citizens to say maybe we should be able to petition to get on the ballot to have

additional choice. that is something an overwhelming majority of americans agree with. geoff: on the matter of mounting a potential unity ticket, i spoke on this program -- on this program last week with former house democratic leader dick gephardt who is now leading a bipartisan organization to stop your group. here is some of what he said. >> they say they're forming an insurance policy in the case the candidates are trump and biden. that's precisely the time they should not do this, if their goal is not to reelect donald trump. geoff: he says that in normal times, he would have no problem with a third-party ticket. there have been third-party presidential bids for generations but these are not normal times. he says donald trump could not be permitted anywhere near the white house and no labels potential candidacy would siphon off those for joe biden. gov. hogan: i believe they are not normal times and there's never been more of a demand for this potential option ever before in the history of our

country. we've never had a situation where some are between 59% and 64% of the people say they would consider a third option. we've never had a time when 49% of all voters in america were not registered independent with only 25% being republican or democrat. i would disagree with the premise that they could predict now maybe nine or 10 months early who the nominees might be, whether no labels puts together a ticket or not, and whether or not that ticket will draw from joe biden or donald trump. i can tell you the democrats are in a full-blown panic because their candidate is in a really weak position. they currently got a third-party candidate that is potentially going to throw the election. a green party candidate that is pulling about 4%, 5% of the vote, and they have a difficult primary with 35% of the primary voters not jodi -- not voting for joe biden. geoff: what would be the

strategy of getting to 270 electoral votes? in new hampshire, the two most prominent politicians were senator joe manchin, a democrat from west virginia, and former republican utah governor jon huntsman. neither of whom are household names and it really speaks to the logistical challenge that your organization will have been building support for these candidates if they were on the ticket. gov. hogan: that is a big if. i am not sure that any one of them would be on the ticket. i am not sure if there will be a ticket. but no labels was not created for this purpose. no labels has been around for 12 years. i can tell you there's not a single person in the no labels organization that i know of that is trying to hand the presidency back to donald trump. i have been one of the strongest critics in the republican party. my co-chair joe lieberman has been involved in the organization for a long time. now, i think it is a lot of negative rhetoric coming out of democratic operatives who are trying to stifle potential involvement from citizens. geoff: we are waiting a

potential indictment of donald second trump regarding his role in the events leading up to the january 6 insurrection. he faces as many as six criminal and civil cases in the next year. it seems as is legal troubles expand, sodas his base of support. what accounts for that and do you see that changing? gov. hogan: i sure hope so. i have been trying to do my part to steer the party away from donald trump. i think it would be a terrible mistake for the republican party to nominate donald trump and i think it would be terrible for the country for donald trump to be elected president again. look, the problem we have right now, about 50% of the likely republican primary voters do not want donald trump, but they've got 11 choices who else they might support and many of them are struggling to get attention because all of our focus is on the trump legal problems. we've gotta find a way to narrow that field down, decide who the strongest candidates are, and start giving them more attention.

with the current indictments and potential future indictments coming out, it will continue to be the thing that takes all of the oxygen out of the room. unfortunately, that is hurting the republican primary challengers, if not helping trump, it is certainly not hurting him. in a general election, i think it hurts him terribly. it makes them a candidate that is unqualified, and should be disqualified from being president, and i think it makes it impossible for him to win a general election. but, this is kind of a dream day scenario with the first case coming up in may, which is long after we will have selected a nominee. it will be bad for the republican challengers and probably good for the democrats in the general election. geoff: former maryland governor larry hogan, thank you for being with us. gov. hogan: thank you, geoff. geoff: in one week, the contract between 340,000 unionized ups

workers and one of the largest package delivery companies in the world expires. workers have overwhelmingly authorized a strike and say they are ready to walk if their union, the teamsters, and ups can't reach a deal. the labor dispute could lead to the largest strike in u.s. history against a single employer and cause massive economic disruption in the shipping industry and beyond. stephanie sy is back with a report from los angeles on how the battle lines are being drawn. >> are we ready to fight? >> yeah! stephanie: at an early-morning rally outside a ups facility, the leader of the teamsters, sean o'brien, didn't pull any punches in the city of angels. >> we are going to be the example on how it is to fight and take on a schoolyard bully. >> no contract, no work! stephanie: before talks broke down in early july, the union said many issues had already been resolved with the company. ups agreed to end a two-tiered

wage system for part-time drivers, new overtime rules, and improvements to keep drivers safe from extreme heat, including a commitment for a/c in new package delivery vehicles and putting fans in existing trucks. what are the remaining sticking points? >> economics, completely economics. we've got 95% of the contract negotiated all favorable for our members. no concessions. and ups just is balking at rewarding the people that make them the success that they are. stephanie: teamsters point to record ups operating profits of $13.1 billion in 2022 and and $12.8 billion in 2021 when home deliveries were an essential service. >> we've been working so hard for the last three years during covid. stephanie: kris haro is a package delivery driver who has worked for ups for seven years. >> nobody wants to go on a strike. nobody wants to stop working

because everybody needs ups. but at the same time, look what's happening with the company making all these profits and we're not getting none of the piece of the cake. it's not like we want everything, we just want what we deserve. stephanie: ups argues that its union employees are well compensated, with health care benefits for full and part-time workers. and full-time delivery drivers earning $95,000 a year on average. >> they work 60 to 65 hours to make that money. that's all overtime. they make a lot of money, but they earn it. but, they don't tell you about the part-timers when they starting at $16 per hour. stephanie: more than half of ups' unionized workforce is part-time, including package handlers and sorters in the warehouses. while ups says it presented the union with a historic economic proposal, union leaders say wages for part-timers are too low given the hardships of the job. glynis sims is a part-time driver. >> everybody should get a fair chance to reach top pay and get

paid across the board equally. you know, so if we have to stand up together, then i'm with it. stephanie: teamsters have been holding rallies like this around the country and performing practice pickets and insist they will not negotiate beyond the july 31 deadline. a spokesperson for ups declined an interview request from the "newshour," but in a statement said, "we need to work quickly to finalize a fair deal that provides certainty for our customers, our employees and businesses across the country. we started these negotiations prepared to increase the already industry-leading pay and benefits we provide our full and part-time union employees and are committed to reaching an agreement that will do just that." the last time ups workers went on strike in 1997, the 15-day action cost the company $850 million. today, ups handles about a quarter of all parcel deliveries in the u.s and a 10-day strike could cost the economy more than

$7 billion, according to one estimate. a strike would also affect millions of customers, like small business owner alex dettman. he sells antiques and collectibles on ebay and etsy from his home in minneapolis. >> the larger items, the heavier bulkier boxes that i send really have to go ups. you can ship them through the post office, but it can be twice as much, if not more. stephanie: while dettman is sympathetic to the ups union, he's concerned what a strike will mean for his business. >> people will worry about all of the carriers. you know, when is my item going to arrive? is it going to get lost somewhere? and they'll just say, forget it. that means, you know, maybe a bad august for me and lots of other etsy sellers. stephanie: supply chain experts say ups risks losing market

share to its competitors. in advance of the strike, fedex is encouraging ups customers to switch and the u.s. postal service says it can handle it. >> the reality is that ups drivers and the teamsters union have tremendous leverage. stephanie: kent wong is the director of the ucla labor center. >> the whole point of a strike is disruption, to extract economic harm to the company in order for a more favorable deal at the bargaining table. stephanie: wong points out that public support for unions is higher than its been in decades and strike strategies have worked recently, including for graduate student workers and l.a. school employees. >> when workers organize, when they take collective action in action, they generally win. stephanie: organizers are betting the momentum continues. on social media, the bold union actions from hollywood to hotels are hashtagged "hot labor summer." and unions are showing

solidarity. at the rally in l.a., there were more screenwriters than ups workers. zev frank, a member of the writers guild of america, has been on strike since may. >> the same kinds of grievances that actors have, that writers have, that teamsters in hollywood have, the teamsters and ups have. there's a common throughline and there has been a massive transfer of wealth upwards in this country. the only way we're going to put an end to it is by organizing and coming out for one another and these displays of solidarity. stephanie: given the stakes of a possible strike, hundreds of business groups have urged the biden administration to intervene, as he did recently to avert a rail strike. union chief sean o'brien firmly rejects the suggestion. >> we'll settle our problem one way or the other. we try to be diplomatic. we try to be reasonable, but sometimes people don't want to listen. stephanie: in front of the crowd, the tone is far from diplomatic. >> if you want to fight, put your helmets on and buckle your chin straps, it's a full-contact

sport. stephanie: at least some of the ups workers sounded less combative. >> don't take me wrong. this is a great company. we get paid really well. we get really, really good benefits, everything. i love the company, but we deserve more for the hard work we've been doing for a long time. stephanie: with one week until the deadline, negotiations between teamsters and ups are resuming tomorrow, a sign a deal may still be reached. for the "pbs newshour," i'm stephanie sy in los angeles. geoff: a new study out today shows how college admissions practices benefit the richest applicants. opportunity insights, a group of harvard economists, analyzed data from 12 of the country's top colleges from 1999 to 2015. they found that among students with the same test scores,

applicants with families in the top 1% of earners were 34% more likely to be accepted. those from the top .1% were twice as likely to be accepted. and schools gave preference to legacies and student athletes, among others. overall, one in six students at ivy league schools had parents in the highest income bracket. raj chetty directs opportunity insights and co-authored the study and he joins me now. based on your research, how are elite institutions giving it admissions advantage to students who come from wealthy families? raj: what we are finding in the study, looking at detailed admissions data from many ivy league and other highly selective colleges, is that there are three key factors that lead to higher admission rates for kids with the very highest income rates. families making more than $600,000 a year. first is legacy admissions, if your parents went to the

college, you have a five or six fold higher chance of getting into the college. the exact same appellation credentials -- application credentials. second, recruited athletes have a significant advantage of getting into these colleges and they tend to come primarily from very high income families. third, we find that nonacademic credentials, things like extracurriculars or other activities, leadership traits outside the classroom, these credentials tend to be much stronger among kids with very high income families, and much stronger among kids who went to elite private high schools, which of course tend to be attended primarily from kids very high income families. together, those three things explain why kids from the highest income families are about two times as likely to get in as kids for middle-class families. geoff: there are certainly people who will hear this and think being wealthy affords all sorts of advantages in life. it stands to reason that would extend to college admissions.

why in your view should this research give people pause? raj: what is surprising to us about the study is not simply that there are more high income kids than middle-class kids at these colleges. as you noted, we might expect that given there's advantages that kids from high income families have. better schools, better neighborhoods, over many years. what is critical we are finding in this study is that's not enough to explain why you have one in six kids coming from the top 1% at our nation's top colleges. even relative to all those benefits. you look at their sat scores at the point they are applying to college, 7% of kids with the highest sat scores are coming from families in the top 1%. but 16% of kids attending our nation's top five colleges are coming from families of the top 1%. that is telling us that even above and beyond the advantages they've had in childhood, kids

from high income families are getting an additional boost in the admissions process. geoff: our team reached out to some of the elite universities mentioned in your study. a spokesperson from princeton university says the status is from 2015 and the share of low income students has changed since that. "the percentage of pell eligible students at princeton has more than doubled since the first of the cohort chetty analyzed. lower income students make up more than a fifth of the student body at princeton." what do you make of that and is it a mistake to look at this data from eight years ago as if it captures the current moment? raj: that's a great point. we look at how things are changing over time as well. princeton in particular has been a leader in admitting and recruiting more kids from lower income families. what we are finding in particular is it is the middle class that is being squeezed, that is missing from these colleges. in particular, if you look at

admissions rates, they are lowest from kids and what you might think of as upper middle income families. going to what you would think of good public schools, living in good neighborhoods, those kids have the lowest chances of going in. lower than kids at the bottom end of the income distribution, and especially much lower than the kids at the very top, of the income distribution, many of whom are going to private schools and so on. that piece of it still persists today to the present point, and i think it is extremely important to think about that at princeton and other colleges. geoff: if it is the kids from affluent families that are getting the advantages, and kids from the lower income families in some cases that are getting the attention from these schools that are focused on diversity, how should these universities make sure that their student bodies reflect economic diversity and include more middle-class families, as you mentioned? raj: i think it comes back to thinking about the three factors we identified as driving the very high income admissions.

does it make sense to have legacy preferences? does it make sense to be recruiting athletes in particular from the highest income families? does it make sense to focus on nonacademic rentals -- credentials? when we follow these kids over time and look at their outcomes after college, you can ask is that the case that kids with a stronger credentials, extracurriculars and so on, maybe they are more qualified candidates? maybe they are doing better 10 years after college and merit that they are admitted at higher rates. actually we find when we look at a wide variety of outcomes, incomes, chances of working at a prestigious firm, going to a top graduate school, there is no evidence that the kids getting those admissions advantages are doing any better. one simple answer to your question is revisiting whether those make sense, possibly pulling back on them could allow more middle-class kids a shot at these opportunities. another possibility is to take

an affirmative approach and recognize kids coming from lesser resourced schools, maybe they reserve a boost as well. geoff: raj chetty, professor r of economics at harvard university, thank you for being with us. raj: my pleasure. geoff: barbie -- the name conjures up feelings for many generations of women and men across the world. and, as you've likely heard, the plastic wonder is featured in a new movie. "barbie" raked in about $155 million this past weekend, making it the biggest opening for a film this year. jeffrey brown looks at the global phenomenon. it's part of our arts and culture series, canvas. ♪ >> what are you doing here? >> i'm coming with you.

>> did you bring your rollerblades? i literally go nowhere without them. jeffrey: "barbie" is getting a big screen makeover in director greta gerwig's new film, but it's just the latest update in a long history. ♪ barbie, her original full name was barbara millicent roberts, was created in 1959 by ruth handler for the mattel toy company. she stood 11.5 inches tall, that mostly hasn't changed, but her look certainly has. as the blonde, slim-waisted, full-chested doll became a cultural phenomenon of the post-war era. her male counterpart ken was brought on board in 1961. worth noting, he first came with straight arms that didn't bend and a head that could turn only left and right. it was 1980 before mattel released the first black and latina dolls actually named barbie. and, in 2016, three new body

types were introduced -- curvy, petite, and tall. also changed, who she is, including her work. she's saved lives as a surgeon, traveled to space as an astronaut, and even run for president. a few times, in fact. she has had over 250 careers, from ceo to canadian mountie. she still sells plenty across the globe, found in more than 150 countries. mattel estimates that more than 100 dolls are sold every minute. and, of course, she's on social media with some 19 million followers across platforms. an icon of the lgbtq+ community, barbie drag shows have cropped up this summer in anticipation of the film. now gerwig's film, starring margot robbie as barbie and ryan gosling as ken, clearly has some high heels to fill. joining me now is andrea nevins.

she's director and writer of the documentary "tiny shoulders: rethinking barbie." thanks for joining us. so, we are deep into the world of cultural touchstones here, right? how can one small doll mean so many different things? >> well, this was a doll that was not like any doll that had preceded her. most dolls were baby dolls. and baby dolls were a way for little girls to enact potentially the ly job that they could have in society, which was to be a mother. and that was the sole aspiration. this doll came about and it was an adult doll and it had breasts, and thus it almost instantly absorbed all of the contested space of femininity at the time and continues to today. jeffrey: and that has come to mean different things to different generations of barbie buyers, barbie lovers, and

barbie haters. >> precisely. so, she she rides the waves of feminism again and again and again from being adored early on, because she was one of the only toys that girls could play with that that allowed them to think about their adult selves and not only allowed them to think about their adult selves, but allowed them into a space that they weren't allowed. meaning to be doctors, to be astronauts. and then when the second wave of feminism came around in the early 1970's, she was reviled. she was everything that feminists didn't want to be, which was an object. she was -- she came to symbolize an object as opposed to an aspirational toy. and then, she comes back again in the 1980's, and then she gets the full backlash of the u.s. third wave of feminism, backlash in the 1990's and so on and so on. jeffrey: tell me a little bit about your own documentary, what you were able to see clearly at a key moment for mattel and in the history of barbie.

>> yes, it was a pivot point for them. they had had great success with barbie for a long time, but this was a moment where they felt the doll might cease to exist. >> barbie wasn't widely revolutionary toy. barbie became things that real women hadn't become. you had broken barriers. >> these dolls enable girls to tell stories about dreams. >> she's been around 55 years but the last few years have been trying for barbie. >> this was 2014, and a friend of mine was working on the doll. but, she said that she was so excited to go to work every morning because they would sit as a group of women and try and think about what it means to be a woman in our society today and thus imbue the doll with that, with the positive aspects of that. and so, it was very fun for her to go into work. and as she said that, i thought this doll is such an excellent lens to look at the last 60 years of feminism. would it be possible for me to

go and film this reideation of this toy? and it took seven months because they were really frightened of letting anybody in. but i think they ultimately decided that that illuminating the inside would keep them authentic and accountable. and so, they let me in on all of the meetings as they thought through who this doll could be and all of the ramifications of that. jeffrey: who is barbie now? pre-greta gerwig's film. >> that's a very good question. she is still a toy and was a toy that managed to really take hold again during the pandemic because the kind of toy that she is allows little girls and boys to get to play using their imagination. and because of the changes that they made in making her curvy and many different colors and handicapped barbie, that made her more appealing to parents who were afraid of that old

stigma where woman would be put into a box so to speak, as opposed to allowed every opportunity. that was the doll that greta got to take out into the world. so now, think she's going to be seen in a very different way. hi, barbie. >> hi, ken. ♪ jeffrey: what has greta gerwig done with this complicated history? >> she's allowed us to get inside the head of a little girl in the most magical way. meaning when a little girl plays with barbie, the world is hers. everything that she decides comes from inside of her. and her imagination can be limitless because there are doors closing in her face. she's not subject to the male gaze. so, it's a very particular kind of world. and greta has allowed us to see what that world would look like without men. and the choices that women can make and the freedom that they have in a non-patriarchal world.

so, it's really quite an amazing thing to watch. and she does it with irreverence and humor and joy and a wee bit of rage and so it's just a really fun way to reexamine this doll. jeffrey: given what you know about the history, do you expect even more twists and turns for barbie in the future? >> absolutely, because she is subject to the same backlashes that we as women are. so, i sadly feel certain that that backlash will occur. maybe we've taken a giant step and it will be smaller this time. jeffrey: we're also seeing this phenomenon of barbiecore. pink is everywhere, right. pink is being embraced. what's going on? >> i will take it right now, because it's very rare in our culture that we celebrate femininity and celebrate femininity positively. and so i will take this barbiecore pink moment as a way of saying women are fabulous and

they can be feminine as well as be powerful. jeffrey: andrea nevins is director of "tiny shoulders: rethinking barbie." thank you very much. >> great to talk to you. geoff: as always, there is a lot more online, including a look at fun facts behind barbie's lasting appeal. that's at pbs.org/newshour. and that's the "newshour" for tonight. i'm geoff bennett. thank you for joining us. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by -- >> architect. beekeeper. mentor. the raymondjames financial advisor tailors advice to help you live your life. life well planned. >> committed to advancing restorative justice and meaningful work through investments in transformative leaders and ideas.

supported by the john day and catherine t macarthur foundation, committed to building a more just and peaceful world. more information. and with the ongoing support of these 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.

introducing a technological achievement so advanced... it rivals the moon landing. wow! ok. rude. that's one small step for man.

one giant leap for mankind. stomach hello, everyone. here's what is coming up. >> i believe what i am doing is paving my way home. as china tightens its grip on hong kong, i talk about what it's like living with a bounty on his head.>> class, definitely. and i'm trying to juggle all of these different themes.>> in his new book, colson whitehead returns to the underbelly of 1970s harlem.>> there was so