tv PBS News Hour PBS March 3, 2015 6:00pm-7:01pm PST
>> woodruff: captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc >> woodruff: israeli prime minister netanyahu warns the u.s. against any nuclear weapons deal with iran. good evening, i'm judy woodruff. >> ifill: and i'm gwen ifill also ahead this tuesday: john boehner backs down, as the house votes to end the political showdown and fund the department of homeland security >> woodruff: plus: >> the first few weeks i made some of my best friends, but two of us were sexually assaulted before classes had even started. >> woodruff: sexual violence on campus, a new documentary follows the stories of victims at universities and colleges across the u.s. >> lets face it. if they're happening at this rate over decades and decades university officials have to notice.
the reason they haven't taken action is because they don't want anything to harm the reputation of their university. >> woodruff: those are some of the stories we're covering on tonight's "pbs newshour." >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> it doesn't matter what kind of weather. it doesn't matter what time of day or night. when mother nature's done her worst, the only thing that matters to us, is keeping the lights on for you. we're the men and women of the international brotherhood of electrical workers. keeping the power on in communities like yours, all across the country. because when bad weather strikes, we'll be there for you. the i.b.e.w. the power professionals. >> at bae systems, our pride and dedication show in everything we do; from electronics systems to intelligence analysis and cyber- operations; from combat vehicles
and weapons to the maintenance and modernization of ships aircraft, and critical infrastructure. knowing our work makes a difference inspires us everyday. that's bae systems. that's inspired work. >> lincoln financial-- committed to helping you take charge of your life and become you're own chief life officer. >> and the william and flora hewlett foundation, helping people build immeasurably better lives. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> ifill: for 39 minutes today, the prime minister of israel
held forth before congress, attacking a potential nuclear accord with iran. the highly controversial speech was boycotted by some, praised by others and challenged by the man at the other end of pennsylvania avenue. >> mr. speaker, the prime minister of israel. >> ifill: the prime minister entered the house chamber to the kind of rousing welcome usually reserved for presidents on "state of the union" night. for netanyahu, the address provided a prime opportunity to mount a case against the emerging outlines of a possible nuclear deal with iran, three weeks before the deadline for agreement. >> that deal will not prevent iran from developing nuclear weapons. it would all but guarantee that iran gets those weapons, lots of them. >> ifill: iran today rejected president obama's demand for a ten-year freeze on its core
nuclear activity. but netanyahu argued even if the islamic republic had agreed, its promise would be worthless. >> the u.n.'s nuclear watchdog agency, the iaea, said again yesterday that iran still refuses to come clean about its military nuclear program. >> ifill: as the prime minister spoke in washington, secretary of state john kerry was leading the latest round of talks in switzerland. and the israeli leader warned any potential deal raises two grave dangers. >> that's why the first major concession is a source of great concern. it leaves iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and relies on inspectors to prevent a breakout. that concession creates a real danger that iran could get to the bomb by violating the deal. but the second major concession creates an even greater danger
that iran could get to the bomb by keeping the deal. because virtually all the restrictions on iran's nuclear program will automatically expire in about a decade. that's why this deal is so bad. it doesn't block iran's path to the bomb, it paves iran's path to the bomb. >> ifill: netanyahu's solution: ditch the talks and toughen sanctions on tehran. at the white house, president obama issued a nearly point-by- point rebuttal, at an oval office meeting with defense secretary ashton carter. >> the deal that we are trying to negotiate, that is not yet completed, would cut off the different pathways for iran to enhance its nuclear capabilities. the alternative the prime minister offers is no deal, in which case iran will immediately begin once again pursuing its nuclear program, accelerate its nuclear program without is having any insight into what
they're doing. and without constraint. his essential argument is if we just double down on sanctions iran won't want to do that. the bottom line is this, we don't yet have a deal. it may be that iran cannot say but if we're successful in negotiating then in fact this will be the best deal possible to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. nothing else comes close. >> ifill: neither the president nor any of his top aides met with netanyahu during his washington visit. and more than 50 democrats boycotted an event they said was politically-motivated. house minority leader nancy pelosi did attend, but she blasted netanyahu afterward in a statement: >> "i was near tears throughout the prime minister's speech," she wrote, "saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the united states and saddened by the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by iran." >> ifill: senate majority leader mitch mcconnell, in offering
praise for the speech, spoke for many republicans. >> we were all extraordinarily impressed with the address of the prime minister of israel today to the joint session of congress. no country understands better the threat that a nuclear-armed iran presents than the israelis. we appreciate his coming, we >> ifill: the speech was also broadcast in primetime in israel, just two weeks before national elections. >> ifill: we'll return with reaction to the speech, and the potential deal with iran, after the news summary. >> woodruff: the battle over funding the u.s. homeland security department is over. the house of representatives voted today keep the agency running for the rest of the fiscal year. but most republicans opposed the bill, after failing to roll back the president's immigration initiatives. later in the program our political editor takes a closer look at how it played out. >> ifill: former c.i.a. director and retired general david
petraeus has agreed to plead guilty to mishandling secrets. in a federal plea deal today, he admitted to illegally keeping classified documents and to allowing paula broadwell, his biographer and mistress, to use them. petraeus resigned as c.i.a. director in 2012 after the affair came to light. he could face a year in prison and a fine of $100,000. >> woodruff: in iraq, thousands of iraqi troops and shiite militia, with help from iran battled for a second day to retake tikrit from islamic state fighters. officials said hundreds of roadside bombs and mines slowed the offensive. but in washington, the head of u.s. central command, army general lloyd austin, said isis has already been battered by an american-led coalition. >> we are having significant effects on the enemy. since commencing our air operations in early august, just seven months ago, we've killed more than 8,500 isil fighters. we've destroyed hundreds of its
vehicles, along with tanks and heavy weapons systems. >> woodruff: u.s. military officials have said taking tikrit is a step toward launching an iraqi offensive against isis-controlled mosul in the spring. >> ifill: aides to hillary clinton today defended her use of a personal e-mail account as secretary of state. it was widely reported the democratic presidential front- runner may have violated a federal law that requires government communications be retained. but a spokesman said clinton e- mailed other officials on their department accounts and assumed they'd be saved that way. >> woodruff: thousands of russians paid final respects today to boris nemtsov, a leading opponent of president vladimir putin. at the same time, aides to putin denied any involvement in his death. jonathan rugman of independent television news, reports. >> reporter: the line the pay respects for boris nemtsov snaked through the moscow snow for hours. the opposition leaders was
gunned down just outside the kremlin on friday night. kremlin officials were conspicuously absent from today's funeral. nemtsov is the president's most prominent critic to have been murdered in 15 years, and if his death was meant to silence the rest well, today at least, they were in the afraid to say so. >> his death represents there are no limits for those who want to destroy any other opinion in the country except the opinion of the kremlin. there is no limits whatsoever. >> reporter: today police divers were searching the moscow river for evidence, but there have been no arrests. a distant cctv camera caught the alleged gunman running toward his getaway car on friday night. these pictures apparently show the same car driving through the capital, though not the suspects inside it. the kremlin's guards claim their
cameras saw nothing though their sheer numbers might suggest otherwise. the only known witness is nemtsov's girlfriend, but the model insists she never saw the killer's face and she's now flown home to ukraine after three days of questioning. and the row over ukraine made itself felt even here. two e.u. politicians from poland and latvia were banned from entering the country to attend while russia's best-known opposition leader was denied release from jail. >> woodruff: the kremlin has charged the killing of nemtsov was a "provocation" to whip up opposition to putin and destabilize russia. >> ifill: one of south america's most active volcanoes erupted today in southern chile, forcing 3,000 people to flee. the villarica volcano sits about 400 miles south of santiago and reaches 9,000 feet into the sky. early this morning, it spewed a sea of ash and glowing lava high into the air and down its
slopes. the heat caused snow on the sides of the volcano to begin melting, raising a risk of major flooding. >> woodruff: back in this country, most u.s. auto makers reported sales gains in february, despite bad weather. but that didn't do much to help wall street. the dow jones industrial average lost 85 points to close near 18,200. the nasdaq dropped 28 and fell back below 5,000. and the s-and-p 500 slipped nine points. still to come on the newshour. full analysis of prime minister netanyahu's congressional speech; political winners and losers as congress votes to fund homeland security; patterns of racial bias in the ferguson, missouri police department; victims of sexual assault on college campuses tell their stories in a new documentary; and, the peace corps' new initiative to increase opportunities for girls around the world.
>> ifill: now back to prime minister's netanyahu speech to congress, the threat of iran and what, if anything, makes a good nuclear deal. i'm joined by two foreign policy veterans: stephen hadley was national security adviser for president george w. bush. he's now the chairman of the board of directors at the u.s. institute for peace. and vali nasr is a former state department official and current dean of the johns hopkins school of advanced international studies. let's start with you, nasr what was your opinion of the speech? >> i think content was not new, but i think one can say that the way the prime minister laid out the case it will make it much for difficult for the united states government and iran to arrive at a deal because i think the field has been significantly narrowed for the president in particular to argue a deal with iran is actually a good deal.
i think the definition of a good deal was largely defined by the prime minister of israel today. >> ifill: stephen hadley? >> i think it was a very effective presentation. people said the arguments were not particularly new but a lot of americans had not heard them in such detail. i think it was a forceful presentation. i think it will have the impact that vali said. i think in some sense it makes it probably harder for both iran and the administration to make concessions. and i think probably prime minister netanyahu helped himself a little bit in this upcoming israeli election. >> ifill: so if we think that this speech today could have put a spanner in the works of these negotiations under way in switzerland right now, the president's criticism of them today was that there is no alternative presented. is there an alternative to this negotiation? >> there's no alternative to the negotiation. i think what the prime minister of israel was saying is that he doesn't agree with any
concessions or compromises. you can't have negotiations with those. i think what he argued, he set out negotiating with iran on the terms of the deal, you have to lean on them heavily through sanctions and perhaps even a military option until iran eventually surrenders the program. that's not likely to happen because i don't think the military option today is viable. it's not a given we can go back to sanctions. i think the president's case is you have to give diplomacy a chance. the president of israel said there is no diplomatic outcome with iran. you have to come down on the side that it's possible to have a deal like the president believes or you believe the prime minister of israel that says there's no diplomacy with a country you can't trust. >> ifill: i heard the prime minister say two things, there should be a better deal which implies there should be more diplomacy, and that there isn't a military option. did you hear that? >> i heard the better deal. i think he believes that greater
sanctions and more time could result in greater concessions by the iranians. it's difficult. i think the dilemma for the administration, they will still try to see if they can get a deal. i think they know today the kind of deal that will work in terms of the region, in terms of our ally israel and in terms of congress. and the real question is if they cannot get that deal whether they will decide to say that we can't get there at this time and talk about further extension and the question is whether the iranians would accept an extension of the joint program of action that does constrain that program to allow more time for negotiation. then the flip side is more time with negotiation can you actually get a better deal? >> ifill: it seems very confusing. what we know of what's on the table is approve nuclear enrichment and in a year allow it to be enforced.
is that something which... that's the outline of a deal that i think the prime minister said paves the way to a bomb. >> he ultimately... the problem as far as israel sees it is that, a, this is not a permanent deal, and, b, iran retains the right to enrichment. i don't think the problem is so much a technical agreement between iran and the u.s. it's that both sides have to be able to sell this deal back at home. from the iranian side now, they see that the administration can come to a negotiation table and negotiate, and then you have this force outside in the form of the prime minister of israel which at any point in time can come and put pressure on the administration and narrow its ability to sell the deal at home. that makes it very difficult for them to negotiate. and i think the iranians can come up with any set of excuses as to why they can't agree to this. but i think right now they're really worried that the administration will be unable to deliver a deal because of the
congress. >> ifill: do you agree with steve hadley that netanyahu helped himself politically at home? >> well, i think the reception he got in congress definitely helped him. i think we have to see whether the israeli public will see any further fallout from his visit here. but barring that, i think they would see that he was able to come here, was received well by congress, and made his case and no damage is done so far. >> ifill: elaborate what you meant by that. >> well, i still think that there is an opportunity for a deal here. i think it is still the case that in some sense the alternatives for both parties for not reaching a deal are not attractive. i think it will be a challenge for the united states to keep sanctions in place, and, of course, without a deal iran does not get potentially relaxation of sanctions. so i think there's still a reasonable chance that we will get an agreement. the question is: can the
congress... will the president of the united states be able to sell it to the congress. >> ifill: there's march 24th deadline for these negotiations currently under way in switzerland. what are the chances they can be achieved? >> i think chances are narrow. i think there is a chance they agree to some kind of a formula that would extend the negotiations and give gains to both sides, but again, the dilemma is that the way it's happening now is that the iranians, it doesn't look like president obama is the only decision maker here. >> ifill: they're in a box. >> they're in a box. let's be fair. we've heard the case against the hypothetical deal. the president says they haven't reached a deal. i think we should all keep our powder dry, see if there is a deal, let the president of the united states and the secretary of state make their case, and then the american people will have to decide. and the question will be: this is not going to be the deal that
many people had hoped for. it does not roll back the program as far as people would have hoped. it's probably not as long a duration. the question the american people will have to decide is if this is a deal, you know, what do you do then? that i think is a subject on which there ought to be some vigorous debate. >> stephen hadley of the institute of peace and vali nasr of the johns hopkins school of international studies, thank you both very much. >> thank you. >> woodruff: as we mentioned earlier, the dramatic fight over homeland security funding has ended, three days before the money was to run out. many house republicans wanted to use the agency's budget to take a stand against president obama's actions on immigration. as a result, last week the chamber could not pass a funding bill. our lisa desjardins reports on what changed today.
>> reporter: the numbers tell this unusual story. see those "yes" votes to fund homeland security with no strings attached, there on the left, those came mostly from democrats. only a minority of republicans, like idaho's mike simpson, joined those democrats. those republicans argued the battle over the president's actions which allowed more undocumented immigrants to stay in the country, that battle will have to wait. >> congress must continue the fight, fight the president's actions on immigration that i do not support and the american people do not support. we must continue this fight, but we must also allow funding for critical security functions to move forward. >> reporter: that's the split. dozens of other g.o.p. conservatives, like raul labrador, also of idaho insisted the president's actions are so egregious, that republicans should use all their leverage. >> this fight today is not about immigration. this fight today is about the separation of powers. any person who votes for this
deal today is voting to cede some of our power to the executive. >> reporter: democrats like senate minority leader harry reid hailed the outcome, and blasted republicans. >> this crisis was completely unnecessary. in the future, i hope we can avoid those kinds of knockdown drag-out fights and work together for the good of the american people. >> woodruff: and lisa joins me now. and lisa joins me now. what a day at the capitol. >> what a weekend. >> woodruff: what is it that caused speaker boehner to change his strategy and call for full funding through september? >> speaker boehner has been very quiet through this whole fight even going back a week ago about his strategy. he hasn't said anything publicly today. i think what happened here judy is this: he tried to pass as funding bill with the immigration bill attached as his conservatives wanted. that didn't work. he took that apart. he detached the immigration issue and then friday night in that amazing vote i know you talked to mark and david about, they still could not pass as
bill with just the three-week extension. my sources tell me that friday night it was clear to the speaker and those around him that the only option was the senate bill. if they want to keep homeland security funded, they got the bill in their hands today and they voted on it. one other factor i want to bring up is the political factor. we saw something very rare today in that a republican action group called the american action network posted this e-mail, posted this saying they were going to send $400,000 in ads to support homeland security funding. this came out this morning. those ads were going to be run against conservatives, tv ads rush limbaugh 50 congressional districts. judy, they were targeting the leaders of this immigration action, the ones who were willing to go to the brink on, this and here's a republican group saying, no don't go to the brink, we will fight you as republicans on this. >> woodruff: highly unusual to see something like that. so what does it mean that you had almost two-thirds of republicans voting against their own republican speaker. >> it means these are very
difficult times for the republican conference. as one congressman told me today, they have major and difficult conversation as a conference to have now. they've been having that conference for a while. i think looking more big picture, our viewers are probably looking at governance and what happens next in general. i think this shows for now the only way these must-pass fiscal spending bills can pass is with a combination of democrats and republicans and not necessarily a majority of republicans. >> woodruff: so republicans we've been talking about an historically high number of republicans 242 republicans, as many as we've had in 80 years, but are we now seeing a new alignment among these republicans? >> right. since we're on tv, i'll say one caucus we can call the no-way caucus. they're willing to draw the line and stand there and not move. they held up this spending bill. then there's another caucus that maybe i'll call the another day caucus. maybe our viewers have other suggestion, but this is the caucus that says let's not fight this battle now. let's pass a spending bill and
get to other issues. then there's a group in the middle that's not sure what to do. they feel strongly. they are tempted to say no way. they also feel there's a pragmatic call to govern and it's that group in the middle which by my calculation is about half the caucus that will decide what happens next. >> woodruff: but they today are the ones that sided with the no way members, the 50 or so members who were driving this issue. >> well, i think the gets to my point. there were 50 in the no-way caucus friday. then about 70 today who said do this another day. people go back and forth. those folks who today sided with the speaker and said let's fund dhs now includes a lot of freshman up and comers, martha mcsally, mimi walters. people strong on security issues maybe have serious swing districts and they're taking a stand and saying, we want to govern and get past. this. >> woodruff: it will be interesting to see what this means for the speaker going forward. lisa desjardins, thank you. >> my pleasure.
>> ifill: now to a much-awaited report from the justice department. after a months-long investigation following the fatal shooting of african- american teenager michael brown, the department of justice has found what it calls a pattern of racial bias and civil rights abuses by ferguson missouri police. the newshour and other outlets obtained a summary sheet of the full report. among the findings, african americans, who are roughly two- thirds of the ferguson population, made up 92% of "peace disturbance" charges. and, once charged with an offense, they were 68% less likely than others to have charges dismissed. to discuss the disparities, we're joined by: justin hansford, a professor at st louis university school of law. and paul butler, a professor at the georgetown university law center.
paul butler, is this what we mean when we talk about racial profiling? >> indeed it is. what the department has found is that the ferguson police treat african-americans differently at every level. they're arrested more. they get more tickets. they even are bitten by dogs more. one of the most revealing statistics is that of the 15 times ferguson police dogs have bitten people, they've all been african americans. why are they doing this? we know now arrests of african americans basically creating this slush fund. so there are all these court fees, penalties fines. 20% of the revenue of ferguson comes from these selective arrests of african americans, more than any other revenue other than sales tax. >> ifill: justin hansford, you've been following this very closely in st. louis. do these findings surprise you? is this something you think the federal government is in a position to intervene to prevent?
>> no, receiving these findings is sort of like receiving a finding telling us that water is wet. so we live in this community. we've experienced all of these situations firsthand. i myself have been daughter -- targeted for arrest and have been someone who has been a victim of racial profiling in ferguson, so we're not surprised. i think the federal government decision to take an initiative, to take the initiative to intervene in this case is really symbolic. when i went to the united nations with mike brown's parents, ferguson became, in the eyes of the world, short-hand for racial intolerance in the united states all around the world. and this is a symbolic measure. there are 18,000 police departments around the country, and this is just one of them. and so a piecemeal approach is not going to do a great deal to change reality for the majority of african americans in this country or even in this region.
where the ferguson police department only serves about 20,000 residents. so i think we're looking at this as not a solution, but as a symbolic gesture that does help to establish the norm for our racial profiling and predatory policing that targets communities in order to profit. it should not be tolerated. >> ifill: professor butler, make the connection. even if telling bad and racist jokes and sending e-mail as this report finds, what's the connection between that kind of behavior and what he calls predatory policing? what's the connection? >> this is part of a pattern in factors is what what the justice department found. this kind of lawsuit came out of the rodney king case when there was a concern that police officers were not being held
accountable for using deadly force or excessive force against african americans inch a number of cities that have been subject to these kinds of case there have been real changes that have been made. so typically what happens is ferguson has two choices now they can enter into some kind of consent, that is some kind of negotiated settlement, or they can be sued by the department of justice. >> how do you draw the line between the behavior and action. >> the report says this is the behavior. how do you then say this results in abusive policing? >> yeah so you look at the culture of the police. you know, a lot of people don't think that police officers actually treat african americans differently. so this is conclusive evidence that they do. so then the question is, well, how do you change that culture. what happens with these consent decrees is there are policies put in effect about things like when to use deadly force about how to deal with mentally ill people, about a civilian oversight of these police
departments. the change really has to come from the culture. >> professor how does the justice department go about changing these things. it's one thing to release a report that says voila, we have found evidence of this kind of treatment, but how do they go about stopping it? >> well, in the case of ferguson, i am sure there are ongoing investigations question w the police chief to decide how they're going to move forward. but i think the larger question is, as a society, are we going to be able to rethink what policing means for us going forward in the 21st century. are we going to take a piecemeal approach or are we going to pass something like a entered omnibus bill, a racial profiling act, black lives matter act to make police rethink how they address these problems. so the overcriminalized, small actions and communities under the theory of broken windows policing, that's been failure. >> ifill: but let me interrupt
you for a moment, because these laws already exist in ferguson. they already exist in missouri. how... the question isn't whether the law should be passed, the question is how do you enforce them. that's the part i'm having trouble with. >> oh, so i think that the way you enforce laws and the way you enforce the change in we heat waver -- behavior is to tie it to money. that's something we haven't seen as of yet. for example, in missouri, we have a racial profiling act that does trace the data and the racially disproportionate stops of people in the community but we don't have any enforcement mechanism. so police departments like ferguson can say, yes, we see the data. we're going to continue doing it because it's our prerogative unless you start the tie it to their money. unless you have state grants withheld or federal grants withheld. then money talks. >> ifill: let me ask professor butler the same question.
>> well sure, you hope police are accountable. you make sure there are sanctions for when they violate the law. if the department is found they do in ferguson. you also create disincentives so that the police don't use arrests of african americans as a slush fund to fund the city. so there's a bill pending in missouri that would say no more than 20% of our city's income can come from court cases and from penalties. we also need early warning systems. most cops want to do the right thing. it's just a few bad apples who give everyone a bad name. one thing civilian oversight could do is develop practices to identify the bad apples early on. that makes a difference. >> professor paul butler of georgetown university law center and professor justin hansford of the st. louis university school of law. thank you both. >> great to be here. >> thank you.
>> woodruff: next tonight, a new documentary film about rape on college campuses opens in theaters this weekend. jeffrey brown has our look. >> the first few weeks i made some of my best friends. but then two of us were sexually assaulted, even before classes started. >> i went to the dean of students office and she said i just want to make sure you don't talk to anyone about this. >> they protect perpetrators because they have a financial incentive to do so. >> brown: the film is called "the hunting ground" and it's a disturbing look at what it presents as an epidemic of sexual assaults at colleges around the country, from the ivy leagues to large state universities. from fraternities to athletics, a wide swath of campus culture comes under scrutiny. as producer amy ziering and director kirby dick interviewed victims at dozens of schools
over the past year and a half. two years ago they produced "the invisible war," about rape in the u.s. armed forces. >> sixteen thousand, one hundred fifty service members were assaulted in 2009. about a half million women have now been assaulted in the u.s. military. >> brown: that film, nominated for an academy award for best documentary, eventually led to changes in the way the u.s. military handled sexual assault cases. i spoke to kirby dick and amy ziering at this year's sundance film festival. >> there's been quite a few studies that show that the rate of sexual assault is between 16% and 20% of undergraduate women are sexually assaulted in college. so this has been a problem that the universities and colleges haven't addressed and this is one of the reasons we felt we had to make this film. >> brown: do you conclude that it is more prevalent now or that we know about it more? >> both. it's true that over the last year or so this has become a topic that is much more covered.
and i think one of the reasons for that is a couple of the women that we covered in the film who were assaulted at the university of north carolina at chapel hill then became activists and started a movement. that has brought this whole issue to attention. >> brown: amy, you managed to talk to a remarkable number of women. how hard was it to locate them? >> because of the frequency that these crimes are committed on our campuses, it actually wasn't hard to find people. but it was hard to find people who were willing to come forward and speak publicly on camera about it because as we know, it's a very hard thing to talk about, "a". and "b", when you do talk about it there's a lot of retribution and blow back. so it's scary and takes a lot of courage to come public and talk about it. >> brown: and as filmmakers making a case, you have to build a case-by-case script. is that right? >> yeah. we had cameras on over a dozen campuses tracing various stories-- >> brown: over the same time. >> yeah, yeah, yeah-- >> brown: over what period of
time? >> well we started shooting in april 2013 and we actually finished shooting december of 2014. what we wanted to show by following all these people, i mean we interviewed well over 60 people, is that this isn't just a problem where it's one, two, or four people. this is a problem across all campuses. >> brown: according to the filmmakers, fewer than 40% of all cases are ever reported and very few ever lead to punishment. >> in your time at unc, how many students came to you and said they had been assaulted? >> it's hard to put a number on it. at least 100. >> and of the 100, how many were removed from campus? >> from what i remember, no one was expelled during that time. >> so these guys could just get away with it? >> absolutely. >> brown: well, in fact, the word "complicity" is used when it comes to college officials covering up or ignoring cases.
that's a strong word. >> let's face it. if they're happening at this rate over decades and decades, university officials have to notice. i mean there's no way that they don't. administrators know, and the reason they haven't taken action is because they don't want anything to harm the reputation of their university. it will affect their admissions their donations. and so university officials across all campuses often make the decision to keep this covered up and not be transparent about assaults that are happening or the processes to investigate and adjudicate those assaults. >> brown: you do say in the film that the cases of false reports are rarer than is usually thought. but they do happen. we just saw what happened at the university of virginia with a badly reported story. how could you be certain that you had built an airtight case? >> we were researching these cases, in many cases, well over a year. and we have hundreds and hundreds of pages of actual
documentation. we have all kinds of evidence. the statistics around false reporting are somewhere between 2% and 8% sexual assaults are false. which means 92% to 98% of those reports are not false. and i think this is something that really surprises people. they don't realize how rare it is. >> brown: the film ends with what looks like a real call to action. is that how you see your role as filmmakers? >> we've presented a portrait for the american people of what is going on on our campuses and then we are offering up ways in which maybe these things, maybe what's going on can be rectified. >> brown: but you're doing more than that. you're actually at the end saying do this, do that. >> well there's reason for that. when audiences see our film, i mean no one can come out of that film and not be moved. and in many ways not outraged. and what's wonderful is that they want to do something to help change this problem. and so i think it's incumbent on us to give them some directions to go, some things to do. i mean, what we say in our film
is "look, you know many of us have a school we love, that we went to, that we're going to now. you know it's going to help those schools change. it's going to take all the people in this country to contribute. and so that's what we're really doing. we're giving them direction on how to change this problem. >> brown: have you had any response yet from individual schools or from the university system as a whole? >> no. but we are optimistic. when we made "the invisible war" about sexual assault in the military, the military was very responsive. they immediately changed some policies. we expect the same thing will happen with this film. that schools will see this and we hope they will see it as an opportunity to get this kind of information out more widely and it will help them address the problem. >> brown: kirby dick, amy ziering, thanks so much. >> thank you. >> woodruff: there has been some pushback against the film. today, florida state university,
one of the colleges mentioned in the documentary, said they had not been given a fair chance to respond before the documentary was released. >> ifill: we'll be back with a conversation on educating girls with the director of the peace corps. but first it's pledge week on p.b.s. >> woodruff: now a look at a new initiative announced today at the white house, to increase the educational opportunities for girls around the world. jeffrey brown is back with that. >> brown: 62 million: that's the number of girls around the world who do not attend school, according to president and mrs. obama who today announced a new u.s. government effort to help. it builds on a program called "let girls learn". and increases the training received by peace corps volunteers and supports local initiatives aimed at educating girls, beginning first in 11 countries, mostly in africa and asia and eventually phased in
globally. peace corps director carrie hessler-radelet joins us now. welcome to you. >> thank you. >> brown: are the biggest barriers here physical or cultural? >> there are many different kinds of barriers. it could be physical. it might be that there is not a school for ten or 15 miles. it may be unsafe for a girl to walk to and fro. it may be cultural. perhaps a girl's education is not valued because the family does not seen an economic return. it could be that girls are greg married too early and once they're married it's not considered proper to attend school or it could be economic. they can't afford school fees or books or uniforms. >> so when you have such a wide range of issues, what specifically do you want to tackle? >> well, one of the reasons we're so excited about president and mrs. obama's commitment to girls' education and specifically the partnership with peace corps is we've learned the best solutions to
girls' education are really community based and that's where peace corps volunteers come in. we are looking at the very last mile of development living and working in communities. we know these girls families. we know the local leaders and so we can be in a powerful position to advocate and support girls' education. >> well so the initiative talks about retraining peace corps volunteers, retraining for what? what does that mean? >> we're training volunteers so that they in turn can train local leaders to become champions for girls education. and let me just tell you what that means. for example peace corps volunteers can sit down with a school principal and administrators and talk about why it's important for girls who are married or pregnant to continue on in school. or they can sit down with religious leaders or local leaders and talk about why it's so important to delay marriage until after graduation. or they can sit down with family and ask them about or tell them about why it's so important for girls to be educates because it does represent a strong
return on investment, and then they can talk to the girls themselves and find out the real barriers that they face in their lives. >> does this involve new resources? is there new money coming in do you envision, for example, building schools? >> we will not build schools but we may work in schools that others build but what this is actually doing for suss we're mobilizing all of our volunteers around the world, starting first in 11 countries. but we're going to be training our volunteers to be powerful advocates for girls' education and really working with their communities to identify local solutions. peace corps volunteers are already catalyst for actions at the community level. they will focus all their energy on girls' education and empowering girls. >> is there a model or example that you point to if you want to say here's what we want to do, here's what i want to multiply over the coming years. >> i'd love to illustrate it with a story. this is the story of charlene and kristen. charlene was the young woman who introduced the president today.
>> at the ceremony today? >> exactly. charlene and kristen were teachers in liberia. and the first day they walked into the school, they identified two things. first of all that the boys outnumbered the girl 2-s-1. so that meant that half of those girls, female peers, were not at school. and the second thing they noticed is that girls were really not thriving in the classroom. they were shy. they were intimidated. they were not participating some kristen and charlene along with the liberian teacher, started an after-school program that became just a powerful place, a safe place for girls to talk about the difficulties they faced in their lives, the barriers to learning. they gained new confidence they gained new study skills, they saw themselves as leaders. they began to imagine a brighter future for themselves. they are powerful girls now who are very very motivated to make a difference in their community. >> is this not though ultimately up to the government the other governments? i mean, one wonders how much could the u.s. push to make this
kind of change from the outside, because we've also seen a lot of backlash when the west and the u.s. tries to emphasize... >> most of our partner governments are very supportive of girl's education. liberia is a perfect example of that. president is a powerful advocate for girls' education. >> >> brown: but do you see pushback, as well? >> in someplace, not in the places where peace corps works because we work in places where our volunteers can be safe. so most of the places where we work have a more progressive attitude toward girls' education. it's a question of getting down into the community. >> brown: already, carrie hessler-radelet of the peace corps, thank you so much. >> thank you so much. >> ifill: again, the major developments of the day: israeli prime minister netanyahu told congress that a potential nuclear weapons deal with iran
could end in a nuclear nightmare. at the white house, president obama shot back that netanyahu had nothing new to say, and no viable alternatives to offer. and the u.s. house approved a full funding bill for the department of homeland security, after republicans gave up, for now, on rolling back the president's immigration initiatives. >> woodruff: on the newshour online, a california artist uses everything from drawing and design to gardening to provoke discussion at her installations. see what that looks like, we have a video on our homepage. that's on our web site, pbs.org/newshour. >> ifill: and that's the newshour for tonight. tomorrow, we'll examine the difficulty some women veterans have returning to civilian life. i'm gwen ifill. >> woodruff: and i'm judy woodruff, we'll see you on-line and again here tomorrow evening. for all of us here at the pbs newshour, thank you and good night. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by:
♪ ♪ ♪ moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us. >> lincoln financial-- committed to helping you take charge of your life and become you're own chief life officer. >> carnegie corporation of new york. supporting innovations in education, democratic engagement, and the advancement of international peace and security. at carnegie.org.
>> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org
this is "nightly business report" with tyler mathi sue herera. winter chill. how big a dent is the cold weather across much of the country leave on last month's auto sales? stern words. oil rebounds as the israeli prime minister warns the u.s. against accepting a weak nuclear deal with iran. high stakes hearing the future of the affordable care act falls to the supreme court now where arguments will be heard tomorrow about the legality of one of its main provisions: subsidies. all that and more tonight on "nightly business report" for tuesday, the 3rd of march. good evening, everyone. and welcome. a hangover on wall street one day after the nasdaq closed above 5,000 and the dow jones industrial average and s&p 500