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 among gun ownership, young americans, and white supremacy. 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." the william and flora hewlett foundation, for more than 50 years advancing ideas and supporting instituations to promote a better world. at hewlett.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: 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 in the knesset. opposition lawmakers chanted "shame" and stormed out in protest ahead of the vote on judicial reform. with nearly half the seats empty, the measure won 64-0. there are 120 seats in the knesset. prime minister netanyahu praised the passage.

pm netanyahu: 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 the strongest terms. yair: i look at the coalition celebrating and ask, what are you celebrating, that you're dismantling the jewish state? they're celebrating the moment they threw everything that connects us into the dustbin of history. stephanie: today's vote capped a months-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 to the knesset. michal: we're here to protect our democracy. we were left with no choice but to go to disobedience and nonviolent disobedience.

stephanie: over the weekend, thousands marched 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. yair: with this government, we can't reach an agreement that safeguards israel's democracy. we will not give this up. stephanie: netanyahu had postponed the vote in march after weeks of upheaval to give more time for debate. many israelis and allies abroad urged compromise, including president biden. pres. biden: like many strong supporters of israel, i'm very concerned. and i'm concerned that they get this straight. they cannot continue down this road. and i have sort of made that clear. stephanie: but months went by without any signs of hope, and demonstrators returned to the

streets. a key group leading the protests, tens of thousands of military reservists who for months threatened to resign if the bill pushed through. omer: it is heartbreaking, really. i'm so sad, i can't even express it with words. stephanie: omer dank, a former fighter jet navigator with nearly three decades of service, is now a reservist. but, for the last six months, he's been out in the streets protesting the judicial overhaul. having flown risky and legally scrutinized missions, dank says he would hesitate to serve if he can't trust the government's orders. omer: we are bumping targets in very crowded places in gaza, and you can kill a lot of non-involvement collateral damage from our bombing, and you need to know that the decisions are strictly lawful.

stephanie: reservists are critical in israel's air force, leading many of the strikes in gaza and syria and flying surveillance missions in the restive west bank. military leaders say a mass resignation would hurt the nation's military readiness. omer: nobody knows what will be tomorrow, i think. and 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 dank says his time may also come soon. omer: if the government will keep following her plans and her plans, i won't be able to keep my duty anymore. so we will have to take 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'll have, we turn to yohanan plesner. he's the president of the israel democracy institute. that's 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. yohanan: hi, geoff. thanks for having me. geoff: netanyahu backed off trying to push through these changes earlier this year. what's changed? because the opposition is as massive as it ever was. yohanan: yes, what we're seeing are two sort of narratives that are coming to the fore this evening. two are equally powerful and, in many ways, conflicting, on the one hand, the most massive, impressive protests 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, but it's been taking place for months. and israelis also, we see in public opinion polls, 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. and at the same time, we have seen a coalition that, although it doesn't have majority support among the israeli people for this overhaul, he's 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 all governing powers in the hands of the executive branch. geoff: well, tell us more about how this overhaul actually aims to remake the court system, because, as you have pointed out, opponents say it weakens one of the country's few checks on power. and advocates say the judiciary there is too powerful and is controlled by the left. yohanan: well, israel is a democracy.

for 75 years, we had a relatively fragile democracy, but very vibrant, and we're very proud of it with its support among the israeli people, but without a constitution. so, in our delicate system of checks and balances, there's only one institution that constrains the otherwise all-powerful executive branch. in this instance, 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 passed today. and it is an additional plan. and this is probably a very important point, geoff. this is just one piece, one chapter of an entire overhaul. now, when there was -- when there were discussions of compromise as late as today before it passed, the government basically refused to agree that any additional constitutional changes will be legislated with a broad consensus.

and this is the main point. it's a chapter that passed today, and the government has an intention, the coalition, to continue. and this is why the protest is just intensifying, as we're seeing right this minute in the streets of jerusalem and tel aviv. geoff: the white house, as you know, released a statement today 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 is unfortunate that the vote today took place with the slimmest possible majority." does israel's approach risk damaging its relationship with the u.s.? yohanan: well, this constitutional overhaul, if not reversed, will have multiple negative effects on israeli society, on the israeli economy, on israeli security, because it undermines the willingness of reservists to continue to volunteer to reserve service, and, of course, on our international relations, and,

first and foremost, the relationship, the most important relationship with our u.s. ally that is based on common values, two democracies that built this wonderful relationship for decades. so, 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 israel in the israeli people that are opposed to this overhaul, are fighting to reverse it. and, 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 israel defense forces, some 10,000 reservists have said that they refuse to show up for service in protest of this move. how should we read that? what's the significance of it?

yohanan: the idea of the israeli army is entirely based on solidarity, on willingness of israelis to come forward and to volunteer. and this is what israeli security is based on. and the fact that so many israelis that have done so much for the country have been pushed to the corner in a way that they feel like they have to protest in using this most difficult and -- quote, unquote -- "lethal tool" is a very bad sign for how the government conducted this policy. and this will mean that 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 star is initiating or legislating a constitution or a core of a constitution that will bring the country back together. geoff: yohanan plesner is president of the israel democracy institute. thank you for your time and for

your insights this evening. yohanan: thanks for having me. thank you again. ♪ stephanie: i'm stephanie sy with "newshour west." here are the latest headlines. wildfires blazing through the greek islands have forced thousands of tourists to evacuate. the flames reached popular vacation spots. 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. stephanie: the flames were

fueled by intense winds and high weekend temperatures, which soared to 113 degrees on greece's mainland. meantime, forest fires in algeria have killed at least 34 people, including 10 soldiers. nearly 100 blazes are burning in mountainous regions of the north african country, forcing many 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 a deal that had kept a critical trade route for grains safe from the war. meantime, russia accused ukraine of striking two buildings in moscow today, including one near the defense ministry's headquarters. today, the u.s. announced another $400 million in military aid for ukraine. spain is in political limbo

tonight after sunday's elections failed to yield an outright winner. 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 rather 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. stephanie: 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 1000-foot line of buoys on the rio grande without authorization. hours before, governor abbott sent president biden a letter refusing to remove the barrier. the u.s. forest service announced today its own prescribed burn started a 2022 wildfire in new mexico that burned more than 60 square miles. the fire came close to the city of los alamos and the u.s. national security lab there. last year, the forest service accepted responsibility for starting a separate new mexico fire that became the largest in state history. still to come on the "newshour," former maryland governor larry hogan makes the case for a third-party bid in the upcoming presidential 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 about 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, 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? cynthia: well, we have 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? cynthia: 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 home, in other public spaces, they have concerns about their safety. and that's also correlating we found with feelings of anxiety, depression, and ptsd. 25% of them have been in an active shooter lockdown, not a drill, an actual lockdown. and so hen we think about a generation that is hypervigilant, 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? cynthia: 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 understanding for our communities as well. laura: now, this study was about gun -- views on guns and gun violence. but your team also explored connections between gun culture and issues like racism and male supremacy. people 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? cynthia: 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 participant'' views on race in particular impact their attitudes about guns? cynthia: well, there were two different things we found.

we found, on the one hand, there's a correlation between their views about whether they -- their access to guns, their views about gun culture or their views about the second amendment and having higher scores on racial resentment, so meaning 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, they're places with more racial diversity than the ones that they live 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 anti-democratic 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? cynthia: 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 dealing with an issue of somebody being manipulated by content they encounter online, we can prebunk 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 catchup afterward. laura: cynthia miller-idriss of american university, thank you so much. cynthia: thank you. ♪

geoff: the bipartisan political organization no labels is considering launching a third-party unity ticket for the white house next year. that sparked concern among some 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. that's if he's the republican nominee. larry hogan is the former republican governor of maryland. he is now a national co-chair of no labels, and he joins us now. thank you for being with us. fmr. gov. hogan: thank you, geoff. geoff: so you were a popular republican governor in a blue state. you were term-limited out of office. you have said you aren't seeking the republican presidential nomination in this cycle. but in your capacity as the national co-chair of no labels, would you be open to a third-party ticket? fmr. gov. hogan: well, look, 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. and it's a citizen group that's very bipartisan. it works on bipartisan, commonsense solutions to problems. i was involved with the problem solvers caucus of no labels and helped get the infrastructure bill done. this new thing that we're all talking about is not something that's fully baked, but it's -- 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. and yet it looks as, if the nominations were taking place today, that there's a likelihood that those may be the choices. and no labels is talking about the idea next spring of potentially giving voters an additional choice. and they're talking about the idea of maybe bringing the country together by having a republican and a democrat running together on a unity ticket just to put the country first. geoff: the polling that you mentioned, it doesn't suggest that the people surveyed want or

would support a third-party candidate. what's the operating assumption that no labels is using? fmr. gov. hogan: well, actually, two recent polls, one showed 59% would consider a third-party candidate, and the other one said 64% would if they -- an additional poll said that, if you had on the ballot today trump, biden, or neither, that neither would be the winner. so, look, we don't know what it's going to look like next spring. and there's a whole lot of campaigning between now and then. my focus is on trying to elect a republican nominee that's going to be taking the party in a different direction than donald trump and that can be a candidate that could win in november. but 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 an additional choice, that's something that an overwhelming majority of americans agree with. geoff: on the matter of mounting a potential unity ticket, i

spoke on this program last week with dick gephardt, the former house democratic leader, who is now leading a bipartisan organization to stop your group, to stop no labels. here's some of what he said. fmr. rep. gephardt: 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: so he says that, in normal times, he'd have no problem with a third-party ticket. there have been third-party presidential bids for generations, but that these are not normal times this, as he says, donald trump could not be permitted anywhere near the white house and that a no labels potential candidacy would siphon off votes for joe biden. fmr. gov. hogan: well, i agree that they're not normal times, ner en more of a demand for this potential option ever before in the history of our country. we have never had a situation where somewhere between 59 and 64% of the people say they'd consider a third option. we have never had a time when

49% of all the voters in america were now registered independent, with only 25% being republican and democrat. so i would just disagree with the premise that they can predict now, maybe nine or 10 months early, who the nominees might be, who -- whether no labels puts together a ticket or not, and whether or not that ticket is going to draw from joe biden or from donald trump. but i can tell you that the democrats are in a full-blown panic because their candidate is in a really weak position. and they have currently got a third-party candidate that's potentially going to throw the election, and we have got a green party candidate that's pulling about 4% or 5% of the vote. and they have got a difficult primary, with 30% of the primary voters not voting for joe biden. geoff: so what would be the no labels strategy for getting to 270 electoral votes? because at a recent no labels event in new hampshire, the two most prominent politicians there were joe manchin, the democratic senator from west virginia, and jon huntsman, the former republican governor of utah,

neither of whom are household names. and it really speaks to the logistical challenge that your organization would have in building support for these candidates if they were on the ticket. fmr. gov. hogan: yes, well, first of all, that's a big "if," and i'm not sure that either one of them would be on a ticket, and i'm not sure if there's going to be a ticket. but no labels wasn't created for this purpose. no labels has been around for 12 years. and i can tell you that 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 his strongest critics in the republican party. my co-chair, joe lieberman, has been involved in the organization for a long time. right now, i think it's just a lot of kind of negative rhetoric coming out of democratic operatives who are trying to stifle potential involvement from citizens. geoff: we are awaiting a potential second special counsel indictment regarding donald trump's role in the lead-up to january 6. he faces as many as six criminal and civil trials in this election cycle.

and it seems that, as donald trump's legal troubles expand, so too does his base of support. what accounts for that, as you see it? and do you see that changing at all? fmr. gov. hogan: well, 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'd be terrible for the country for donald trump to be elected president again. but, look, it's -- the problem we have right now, about 50% of the likely republican primary voters do not want donald trump, but they have got 11 choices of 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. and i think we have got to find a way to narrow that field down, decide who the strongest candidates are, and then we have got to start giving them more attention. but with the current indictments and potential future indictments coming out, it's going to continue to be the thing that

takes all of the oxygen out of the room. and, unfortunately, that's hurting the republican primary challengers. and if not helping trump, it certainly isn't hurting him. in a general election, i think it hurts him terribly. it makes him a candidate that is unqualified, 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 date scenario with the first case coming up in may, which is long after we're going to have selected a nominee. so it would be bad for the republican challengers and probably good for the democrats in the general election. geoff: former maryland governor larry hogan, thanks for being with us tonight. we appreciate it. fmr. 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're 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. sean: are we ready to fight? >> yes. sean: are we ready to fight? >> yes. 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. sean: 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 in this negotiation? sean: 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 $12.8 billion in 2021, when home deliveries were an essential service. kris: we have 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. kris: 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. sean: 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 work force 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. glynis: i think 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 also performing practice pickets. they 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., 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. alex: 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. alex: i think 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 will just say, forget it. that means 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 has the capacity to handle what is given to it.

kent: the reality is that ups drivers and the teamsters union have tremendous leverage. stephanie: kent wong is the director of the ucla labor center. kent: 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 it's been in decades and strike strategies have worked recently, including for graduate student workers and l.a. school employees. kent: when workers organize, when they take collective action, they generally win. stephanie: organizers are betting the momentum continues. on social media, the bold union actions from hollywood to hotels, are hashtagged #hotlaborsummer. 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. zev: the same kinds of grievances that actors have, that writers have, that teamsters in hollywood have, that teamsters at ups have, there's a common through line. there has been a massive transfer of wealth upwards in this country. and the only way we're going to put an end to it is by organizing and coming out for one anotr in these displays of solidarity. stephanie: given the stakes of a possible strike, hundreds of business groups have urged the biden administration to intervene, as it did recently to avert a rail strike. union chief sean o'brien firmly rejects the suggestion. sean: we will 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. sean: if you want to fight, put your helmets on and buckle your chinstraps. it's a full-contact sport. [cheering and applause] stephanie: at least some of the ups workers sounded less combative. kris: 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 0.1% 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 insigh and co-authored the study. and he joins us now. so, raj, based on your research, how are elite institutions giving an admissions advantage to students who come from wealthy families? raj: great to be here, geoff. so, what we're finding in this study looking at detailed admissions data for many ivy league and other highly selective colleges, is that there are three key factors that lead to higher admissions rates for kids from the very highest-income families in america, families making more than about $600,000 a year. the first is legacy admissions. if your parents went to a given college, you have a five or six-fold higher chance of getting into that college, relative to somebody else with the exact same application credentials.

second, recruited athletes are -- have a significant advantage in getting into these colleges. and they tend to come primarily from very high-income families. and, third, we find that non academic credentials -- think of things like extracurriculars or tir otesviacad, tiiple traits outside the classroom -- these credentials tend to be much stronger among kids from very high-come families and, in particular, much stronger among kids who went to elite private high schools, which, of course, tend to be attended primarily by kids from 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 from middle-class families. geoff: there are certainly people who will hear this and think that being wealthy affords all sorts of advantages in life. it stands to reason that that would extend to college admissions. why, in your view, should this research give people pause? raj: i think what's surprising to us about this 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 that there's an accumulation of advantages that kids from high-income families have, going to better schools, growing up in better neighborhoods, so forth and so on, over many, many years. what i think critical that we're 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. if you look at their s.a.t. scores at the point that they're applying to college, something like 7% of kids with the highest s.a.t. scores are coming from families in the top 1%. but 16% of kids attending our nation's top private colleges are coming from families in the top 1%. so what that's telling us is, even above and beyond the advantages they have had dsfrom high-income families are getting an additional boost in the admissions process at the best colleges. geoff: our team reached out to some of the elite universities mentioned in your study. and a spokesperson from

princeton university says that this data is from 2015 and that the share of low-income students has changed since then. here's part of that statement, "the percentage of pell-eligible students at princeton has more than doubled since the first of the cohort chetty analyzed was admitted more than a decade ago. lower-income students now 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: so that's a great point. and we look at how these things are changing over time as well. and princeton, in particular, has been a leader in admitting and recruiting more kids from lower-income families. but what we're finding, in particular, in this study is that it's sort of the middle class that's being squeezed, that's missing from these colleges. and, in particular, if you look at admissions rates, they're the lowest from kids in what you might think of as upper-middle-income families, going to what you think of as good public schools living in good neighborhoods.

those kids have the lowest chances of getting in, lower than those kids at the bottom end of the income distribution, and especially much lower than the kids from the very, very top of the income distribution, many of whom are going to private schools and so on. and so that piece of it, i think, still persists today, to the present point, and i think it's extremely important to think about at princeton and many other colleges around the u.s. geoff: so, if it's 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 the 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 advantage. does it make sense to have legacy preferences? does it make sense to be recruiting athletes in particular from the highest-income families? and does it make sense to be focused on non-academic

credentials? now, one point i would stress in that context is, when we follow these kids over time and look at their outcomes after college, you can ask, is it the case that kids with the stronger credentials, extracurriculars and so on -- maybe they're more qualified candidates. maybe they're doing better 10 years after college, and it's sort of merited that they're admitted at higher rates. but, actually, we find, when we look at a wide variety of outcomes, your incomes, your chances of working at a prestigious firm going to a top graduate school, there actually is no evidence that the kids who are getting those admissions advantages are doing any better. and so one simple answer to your question is revisiting whether those three advantages really make sense. possibly pulling back on them could allow more middle-class kids a shot at these opportunities. another possibility is to take a need-affirmative approach and recognize that kids coming from less well-resourced schools, maybe they deserve a boost up in the admissions process as well. geoff: raj chetty is professor

of economics at harvard university. thanks for being with us. raj: thank you, geoff. my pleasure. ♪ geoff: barbie -- the name conjures up feelings for many generations of women and men across the world. and as you have likely heard, the plastic wonder is featured in a new movie. "barbie," the film, raked in a whopping $155 million this past weekend, making it the biggest opening for a film this year. jeffrey brown looks at the global phenomenon as 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, you're beautiful. ♪ ♪ jeffrey: barbie -- her original full name was barbara millicent roberts -- was created in 1959 by ruth handler or the mattel toy company. she stood 11.5 inches tall. that mostly hasn't changed, but her look certainly has, as the full-chested doll became a cultural phenomenon of the postwar 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 ryan gosling as ken and margot robbie as barbie, 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? andrea: 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 only 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. andrea: precisely. so, 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 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 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. andrea: 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. she 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. andrea: this was 2014, and a friend of mine was working on the doll. 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 th f rthileae-isid otionf and it took seven months,

because they were really frightened of letting anybody in. but i think they ultimately decided 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? andrea: 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 ore appealing to parents who were afraid of that old stigma, where women 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 i 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? andrea: 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 aren't 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? andrea: absolutely, because she is subject to the same backlashes that we as women are. so, i, sadly, feel certain that that backlash will occur. but maybe we have 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? andrea: 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. andrea: 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 is the "newshour" for tonight. i'm geoff bennett. thanks for joining us. >> major funding for the "pbs newshour" has been provided by. >> architect. beekeeper. mentor. a raymondjames financial advisor tailors advice to help you live your life. life well-planned. >> the kendeda fund, committed to advancing restorative justice and meaningful work through investments in transformative leaders and ideas. more at kendedafund.org. supported by the john d. and catherine t. macarthur foundation, committed to building a more just, verdant, and peaceful world.

more information at macfound.org. 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. >> this is "pbs newshour" west from weta studios in washington and from our bureau at the walter cronkite school of journalism at arizona state university. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy.] >> you're watching pbs.

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. ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ -today on "america's test kitchen," lan makes julia cherry hand pies, adam reviews electric juicers, and elle makes bridget apple blackberry betty. it's all coming up right here on "america's test kitchen." -"america's test kitchen" is brought to you by the following.