Return to Transcripts main page
World Shaken Over Sarah Everard Murder; Truth About AstraZeneca Vaccine?; Interview with Rep. Jahana Hayes (D-CT). Aired 3-4p ET
Aired March 16, 2021 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: Hello, everyone, and welcome to AMANPOUR.
Here's what's coming up.
DR. SOUMYA SWAMINATHAN, CLINICAL SCIENTIST: We do not want people to panic.
AMANPOUR (voice-over): The truth about the AstraZeneca vaccine. We cut through the copycat hysteria to separate facts from fiction in the midst of
Then: With women in Britain and around the world still shaken from the murder of Sarah Everard, we asked: How can men do better?
REP. JAHANA HAYES (D-CT): It's not like, if you put kids back in the building, then the learning resumes. They are going to have -- be returning
from what is likely the most traumatic incident of their life.
AMANPOUR: Teacher of the year turned congresswoman, Representative Jahana Hayes talks to Michel Martin about this year's undeniable impact on
educators and children.
AMANPOUR: Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
Europe's slow-going vaccination rollout hit snail's pace this week, after several nations suspended use of the AstraZeneca vaccine. Denmark was the
first to do so, after a Danish woman died from blood clots following her shot.
While doctors and scientists say there is no link, the World Health Organization is trying to stop panic by pointing out all the evidence that
shows the shot is safe. The head of the European Medicines Agency says the benefits of the shot far outweigh the risks.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EMER COOKE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, EUROPEAN MEDICINES AGENCY: I want to also stress that, at present, there is no indication that vaccination has caused
these conditions. We are -- currently, we are still firmly convinced that the benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine in preventing COVID-19, with its
associated risk of hospitalization and death, outweigh the risk of these side effects.
AMANPOUR: Now, the decision to halt the vaccine may have been driven by a desire to combat vaccine hesitancy, but could it actually do the opposite?
Here to discuss are pediatrician and former WHO Director Anthony Costello, plus David Spiegelhalter, statistics professor at Cambridge University.
Gentlemen, welcome to the program.
Can I go to you first, Dr. Costello, for the medical truth and the facts of what's going on? Because, clearly, there seems to be a massive reaction in
So, according to the figures, some 17 million people have been injected with AstraZeneca vaccine, and, of those, 37 have developed cases of clots.
Can you explain to us the significance of these numbers and what you know about this clotting situation?
DR. ANTHONY COSTELLO, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON: Well, as I'm sure my colleague David will agree, that when you have the huge rollout of the
vaccine, you need clear data that the rate of any complications is higher than you would expect to find in the general population, or if you're doing
trials, and we have done a lot of big trials, to show difference between the vaccinated and control group.
So, for example, in America, you would expect one to 2,000 people in the U.S. to have clots in their legs or lungs every day. Now, if at the moment,
the vaccine rollout is 1 percent, then you would expect to have 10 to 20 people with blood clots each day, regardless of whether they have had the
vaccine or not.
So, we -- I'm actually quite annoyed actually at this, because you have a regulatory process that you take a lot of time over, great care to show
that the vaccine is safe. And then, at the first sign of any trouble, you say, oh, let's suspend the vaccine. And that will have negative
consequences, as you suggest, for vaccine hesitancy and for overreacting, I think, and all the people that aren't going to get access to those
AMANPOUR: So, let me just ask you. Again, you have pointed out the discrepancy between blood clots in real time compared to blood clots that
may or may not be due to the vaccine or under these conditions.
What exactly is the condition that those who are suspending it are talking about? It's some kind of cerebral vein thrombosis. Can you explain it?
COSTELLO: Yes, well, that's the only caveat.
As I understand it, the Germans have reported seven cases of what's called cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, which is a slightly unusual cause of
stroke that actually we see more commonly in newborn infants in intensive care, or in -- slightly more commonly in women.
And, basically, the brain is wrapped in a tough coat called the dura, and beneath them are veins that drain the brain. And if you get clots in those,
it may cause you headache, abnormal vision, or symptoms of a stroke. Most of them, as I understand it, do get better on their own.
So, yes, it's a moderately serious condition. But whether it's more common or not, we don't know much about the epidemiology. I can't -- I had to look
to find out exactly how common this is. Of course, we must investigate this. But I'm suspicious that this is being -- this is an overreaction at
And we need to look to really see what these cases are about, who they're affecting, and how it fits into the larger picture.
AMANPOUR: I will get back to you in a minute, Doctor, but first you to, Professor.
The doctor says and points out this is just statistics, and says that we do actually need to look at what is underlying. Can you trace the social
phenomenon, this statistical phenomenon, and tell me why and what you think this suspension is going to do in terms of hesitancy or the reverse?
DAVID SPIEGELHALTER, CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY: Well, I mean, it's clearly vital that we do keep track of any adverse effects.
And this cluster of this very rare syndrome, it looks like, has happened in Norway and Germany, this is -- it's more specialized than just looking at
thrombosis or whatever, because, as we have heard, there really doesn't seem to be a signal for those in general, blood clots in general, compared
with the large numbers we'd expect to happen just by chance a week after somebody had the vaccine.
And -- but there is a natural human reaction to say, oh, well, I got the job, and then there was this process close by afterwards, well, it must
have caused it. And we know the problems with that thinking -- that sort of thinking, when we go back to the connection between the MMR vaccine and
autism. And because they tend to happen at the same time, people made that connection.
And that's caused a huge amount of trouble, and though I think the concern that's been raised is that this -- these are not normal circumstances at
all. It's all very -- it's good for regulatory bodies to be cautious. That's what they do. They don't act unless they're sure, if there's
uncertainty about the safety of a new medicine or a new treatment, and that's how they work.
These are not normal times, where the costs of inaction, of stopping the vaccination, and -- could be very substantial, indeed, for the countries
that have paused the rollout. There's a lot -- there's about 1,000 deaths a day at the moment from COVID. And that's increasing. The cases are
increasing as the B117 variant takes and goes through the rest of Europe.
And so any pause, any delay in the vaccination is going to cost lives. And there's already hesitancy about vaccines in general in many countries, and
particularly about the AstraZeneca due to some really unbelievably ill- advised comments that have been made by senior people.
And so I think it's predictable that these pauses will cost lives and very likely -- there very well maybe an increased risk of a rare syndrome, but
is not going to have a big effect overall, compared with the costs of not vaccinating people.
We could talk about the slowness of the rollout in Europe is -- I think it's a tragedy.
AMANPOUR: We will talk about that in a second.
But I want to ask Dr. Costello again. And just to point out, the number of people who AstraZeneca says has reviewed, 17 million people who received
the doses in Europe, 37 cases of people who developed clots, is around point 0.0002 percent.
It is tiny statistically. But you heard the professor. It could create a massive side effect of actually people dying of COVID.
What is the responsibility, Dr. Costello, of, for instance, the European medical association, you know, the regulatory association, to both look at,
you know, these questions, but also actually get people to keep having their vaccinations in the midst of a pandemic?
COSTELLO: Well, the European Medical Agency and the regulatory agency in Europe and the World Health Organization have both been absolutely clear.
There's no evidence that they can see that would persuade them to stop the rollout of this vaccine.
And the regulators should at all times be monitoring the adverse events when they occur. But what I would be saying to the viewers is, look, the
risk of COVID causing a clot are way higher, even if there was a small risk from the vaccine.
I had my shot of AstraZeneca a couple of weeks back. And I'm delighted and I can't wait to have the second one. If you look at the figures in ICUs,
there's data from Holland, from France that between 30 and 70 percent of severely infected people have clots. And about a quarter of clots in their
legs and about a quarter have clots in their lungs.
And we know that COVID milder infection causes -- in fact, my wife, Helen, she had a heart attack last summer, after -- about four weeks after having
the COVID infection she picked up when she was setting up a COVID clinic. So I'm well aware of this.
But there are risks from being -- overcautious suspensions of vaccine rollout sends a terrible message, as David has said. The measles experience
should teach us this. And I'm more worried and so about global rollout, which is the much bigger question we should be talking about, because the
AstraZeneca vaccine does have advantages over Pfizer, Moderna, in the sense that they are more expensive and more difficult to roll out because they
need to be kept much colder.
So I think it's really important that we don't damage the credibility of what seems to be a perfectly good vaccine alongside all the other perfectly
AMANPOUR: OK. So let's explore this a little bit more.
Both of you have expressed a certain amount of frustration. And I think you, Dr. Costello, said you were annoyed about this, that it seems to be an
The French health minister -- and we know that France and Italy and Spain and Germany coordinated their decisions. I'm just going to play what the
French health minister says about the abundance of caution. And then we're going to dig into it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OLIVIER VERAN, FRENCH HEALTH MINISTER (through translator): Europe is also telling us, our scientists alerted by what has happened by the cases that
have been described, once again, even if they are very rare, need two or three days to be able to analyze each case in complete transparency and
complete safety, and to check whether or not there are grounds for considering that these anomalies are linked to the vaccine, and therefore
to be able, once again in complete transparency, to inform us of the possible risks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: OK, so he's saying one or two days. From a medical -- or a few days.
From a medical perspective, how bad is that, Dr. Costello? And, of course, you were at the WHO. You know how these are exponentially played out around
the world in a health crisis like this.
COSTELLO: Well, it's not the delay. It's more the impact that message sends out to people.
If you're looking at populations and the statistics of whether a vaccine works or not, you use big trials to do it. You shouldn't stop the vaccine
once it is approved on the basis of one or two adverse events, and then waiting three days to analyze them. That's not going to help you.
You need to -- I'm sure David will back me up on this. He's a proper statistician -- that you need to look at the numbers of cases and whether
it fits into a pattern, and, therefore, you need to look at that first discreetly, without scaring the entire population of Europe and the world,
because that's going to have a long-term impact on hesitancy.
And also this problem of -- World Health Organization has been pulling its hair out recently trying to get people to understand that lots of countries
in the world have not had any vaccines at all. We were supposed to have vaccinated all health workers in the world in the first 100 days.
We have only got 25 days left and we're way short of that. And the COVAX organization, which is linked to WHO and to the global vaccine alliance, is
only committing to two billion doses by the end of this year. We are way short of what we want. We need more funding and we need to consider whether
intellectual property for this vaccine needs to be suspended.
Professor Spiegelhalter, this statistics, fill in the gaps that Dr. Costello was talking about. And, also, why do you think this has happened?
I mean, I have heard some people think it's political. Why do you -- what's your gut or your knowledge about why this extraordinary move has been taken
by these countries in Europe?
SPIEGELHALTER: Well, I think it's an overabundance of caution.
And I think it really is a bit of a misunderstanding of the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle basically says that you don't act if
there's -- you suspect there might be a risk of doing it. So the tendency is towards inaction.
And we could see that happening back when they approved the AstraZeneca vaccine, that most of the individual regulatory agencies said, oh, they're
not going to approve it for the over 65 because there's no direct evidence it works in the over 65s.
And it's true. There wasn't in the clinical trials. However, all the indirect evidence pointed to that. The U.K. made a bold decision, saying,
we're going to approve it for the over-65s. And since then, it's been shown to be extraordinarily effective in the over-65s.
And they changed their decision, now, rather late, to approve it for the over-65s in the other countries, and now they have done this. So it seems
to me there's an overabundance of what seems to be a rather bureaucratic precautionary approach, because we have to think, what are the harms of
And this is where the statistics comes in, as the EMA as referred to, the benefit/risk ratio, which is a popular sort of term within pharmacology,
the fact that there very well could be a small, tiny risk of some severe events. It's quite possible, because there already is about anaphylaxis and
things like that.
We know that vaccines can carry small risk of severe events. And that's understood. And that goes on to the warnings. But in terms of the benefits
of the vaccines are so enormous -- as I said, 1,000 people a day are dying in countries that have stopped the AstraZeneca vaccine. There's -- it's not
like there's an abundance of vaccines just waiting. So, oh, we will use something else or whatever.
And the rollout in Europe -- well, I mean, as I said, it is a complete tragedy. And a lot of this is due to the British variant, or B117, which we
hit in December and wrecked all our plans for tiering and how our organization and put us to a huge peak of cases around the new year.
Since then, we have been in a severe lockdown. And the vaccines have come along. And we're in a very, very good position now. And Europe had warning
that this was going to happen. They had weeks, even months of warning that it was going to hit them. And the imperative should have been to vaccinate
as many people as possible because of this new variant that was bound to hit them.
And it hasn't happened. And they're going to be in a really difficult situation over the next weeks and months.
AMANPOUR: Let me also just point out, we're not talking about deaths from clots. Apparently, there's no knowledge about that, except maybe the one
that we talked about in Denmark.
And we know that even things like birth control pills cause clots. There's a lot of information that.
AMANPOUR: So, what were you going to say about deaths?
SPIEGELHALTER: Well, there are reports of deaths Norway and Germany, I think. There are suggestions that people have died of a particular
SPIEGELHALTER: This is not just general clots we're talking about, because I think that that is -- it is clear that those are not running at a level
of any concern.
So, it's weird, because it's like 20 countries have suspended it. Others haven't. Here's the Belgian health minister saying they are going to
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
YVES VAN LAETHEM, BELGIAN SUPERIOR HEALTH COUNCIL (through translator): Belgium has decided to continue the vaccination campaign with the
AstraZeneca vaccine as it started. This is important, because it is based on scientific data. And we wanted to remain as scientific as possible in
the media with the political turmoil that is shaking Europe at the moment.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, I guess, Dr. Costello, is it like a peer pressure thing? Why are some countries using it and others not?
COSTELLO: I'm not sure.
I mean, one could speculate about the politics going on in Europe, whether they want to distract attention from the fact that their -- the vaccine
rollout has been disappointing or whether Norway, which is not within the European Union, simply felt they needed to follow a so-called precautionary
principle, which, as David has shown, is not correct, because if you suspend the vaccine program, that's a big decision that will damage people
both immediately, but also in the longer term from hesitancy.
But we're all in this together. And I can't emphasize enough that we need the world to get vaccinated, because we're not doing that well. Look,
you're looking at surges again in Europe. Even in Britain, we are worried that there will be a surge later in the year, because, even though we
vaccinated a third of our population, there's still two-thirds that have not been vaccinated.
And there will be vaccine hesitancy, and there will be some people where it doesn't work very well. So, we have got to get vaccines around the world,
if we want to get the global economy going again. And, at the moment, we're really failing to do that.
And we're not providing the funding. And we need to think about whether we go for voluntary agreements with pharmaceutical companies to get them to
scale up quickly for developing countries. But many countries can't even protect their health workers right now with vaccines that are available,
whilst hundreds of millions of vaccines are being reserved for wealthy nations.
This is not vaccine equity.
AMANPOUR: There's so much to discuss, but so important to reinforce your message and that of the WHO and that of the European Medical Agency that
not taking the vaccine is a lot more dangerous, that COVID is a lot more dangerous.
Dr. Costello and Professor Spiegelhalter, thank you so much for joining us.
Now, there is another epidemic around the world, and it's called violence against women. America's first female vice president made her first address
to the United Nations today, and the topic, women. Take a listen to what she said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAMALA HARRIS, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Eleanor Roosevelt, who shaped the Universal Declaration Human Rights, once said, without equality,
there can be no democracy.
In other words, the status of women is the status of democracy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Now, the speech comes on the heels of a startling new report from the World Health Organization that finds one in three women around the
world has been subjected to physical or sexual violence in their lifetime.
That was the tragic truth for Sarah Everard, the 33-year-old British woman snatched off a busy road in London while walking home at night and then
killed. That happened two weeks ago.A police officer has been charged with kidnap and murder.
Everard's death sent shockwaves through the United Kingdom and around the world, prompting thousands of women everywhere to share their own
experiences of being harassed or intimidated while walking alone. Women are regularly victim-blamed, but now the need for male allies is stronger than
ever, men like the renowned anti-sexist educator Jackson Katz. His 2013 TED Talk "Violence Against Women: It's a Men Issue," has more than two million
He's also co-founder of Mentors in Violence Prevention. Also with us is Mandu Reid. She is the head of the Women's Equality Party here in the U.K.
She's also the first black leader of a national political party in this country.
So, welcome, both of you, to the program.
Mandu, can I ask you first, this particular murder, and the grisly, everyday nature of it has sent shockwaves around this country and the
world. Do you think this government and all the institutions here in this country are stepping up to the challenge of dealing with this kind of thing
and preventing it from happening in the future?
MANDU REID, LEADER, WOMEN'S EQUALITY PARTY: In a word, no.
What's been put on the table so far in response to the tragedy of what happened to Sarah, in my view, amounts to window dressing. The measures are
very piecemeal. They don't acknowledge the full extent of this problem. They don't acknowledge the scale of it. They don't acknowledge the fact
that women live under siege, effectively, in this society, in any society across the world.
And what I think we need to see is real ambition. We need to zoom out and we need to call this what it is, identify the problem of violence against
women and girls as a national threat. It needs to be classified officially as such, like terrorism is classified as, like serious organized crime is
classified as, or child sexual exploitation.
And we need national level strategies, properly resourced prevention, properly resourced programming. It must become a political and policing
priority. Otherwise, we are just going to have to continue to accept the status quo, which you can see women in this country are angry, and they
have had enough, and they don't want the status quo anymore.
But our political leaders they have got a lot of catching up to do.
AMANPOUR: Let's just point out that the Metropolitan Police chief is a woman, Cressida Dick. She points out that this particular kind of kidnap
and murder randomly off the street is very, very rare.
However, we also need to say that one woman is killed by a man every three days here in the U.K. There is a poll that's been printed in "The Guardian"
that shows that almost all women have been sexually harassed in their lifetime, 97 percent of women 18 to 24; 80 percent of women of all ages
have experienced sexual harassment; 96 percent of respondents did not report incidents, 45 percent saying it would not have changed anything.
So, let me ask you, Jackson Katz, then. You have made an amazing name for yourself and gone viral as a man, as a male ally of women, who are
constantly victim-blamed and about whom the language is totally stacked, as if we're always trying to defend ourselves against this threat.
And you're saying the language matters. Tell me what brought you to this place.
JACKSON KATZ, ANTI-VIOLENCE EDUCATOR: Well, thanks for having me on, Christiane. This is such an important issue.
And I affirm everything that Mandu just said. And can I also say that I'm just -- I'm an individual, and I'm doing my work? but I'm part of a growing
movement of men that's been gathering steam over the past several decades, a multiracial, multiethnic movement of men working to promote gender
equity, and to prevent men's violence against women.
And one of the one of the contributions that I have made is to really help people think critically about the language. And if we're going to shift
focus and accountability and responsibility off of the victims, if you will, or off of women and put it onto men, where I think it belongs, and
male-dominated sort of political and economic and social structures, we have to think critically about the language that we use.
And, currently, the mainstream conversation about this subject uses passive voice all over the place, where there's nobody doing it. So, for example,
violence against women, which is a bad thing that happens to women, it's really a passive construction. There's no active agent. Nobody's doing it
to them. They're just experiencing it, kind of like the weather.
But if you say men's violence against women, it's more active, it's more honest. Or we say things like how many women were sexually assaulted last
year or how many women were raped or how many girls in school were sexually harassed, rather than, how many men raped women, or how many boys sexually
I mean, using active language is a way of shifting the accountability and responsibility where it belongs. And, by the way, I don't, I don't think
that that's an anti-male in any way. I think it's just honest.
And I think it's well beyond time that we have more men who are willing to be honest, look this in the face, look -- see the statistics. We have been
hearing about it for decades. It's not a new thing. And the MeToo movement was an acceleration of what already existed, because it gave especially
young women a voice that they didn't have previous.
But a lot of us knew about this for decades, how big a problem this was. There's no way that men can look away and say, well, this is not really an
issue that affects me, or it's not really my issue. It's time, it's well past time that we have more men who have the courage and the strength to
step up and join with women like Mandu and other women all over the world and support them politically, socially, interpersonally, and every other
AMANPOUR: Let me get you, Mandu, to respond to that, and particularly because, in the aftermath of Sarah Everard's murder, there have been a huge
number, an explosion of women online talking about the protective measures that they take every single day, every time they leave their house.
And let me just read one of these tweets: "We change our routes home. We cross the road to avoid being catcalled. We change our clothes. We hold our
keys in our fist. We wear trainers so that we can run. We have our friends on speed dial. We get taxis to avoid walking at late night. Women are not
the ones who need to change."
That's obviously what Jackson has said.
AMANPOUR: But, also, Sarah did all the things that she was meant to have done to stay safe.
How much of that is an issue, and particularly in the way that Jackson has framed it?
REID: I think what Jackson said is very powerful.
I suppose the issue is, Jackson is still a rare voice, and certainly a rare voice in the tier of individuals who hold real power that could actually
create the sort of structural and systemic and radical changes that would start to create the foundations for our culture to evolve and change and
improve, so things get better for women in this respect.
We do still -- and I'm guilty of it as much as anyone -- absolutely right. This thing of passive voice, I think, is a very powerful point to make,
because attitudes are anchored in language. And I do think, you know, if males want to step up and be allies, they can start communicating in the
way about this that Jackson has suggested, they can also be mindful of what it's like for, you know, women to actually navigate the world and play
their part in being sensitive to that.
But you know what they can also do as allies? They can stand up and they can use their power as citizens. And when elections happen in countries,
we've got elections coming up in the U.K., they can demand of anybody who's standing for election that they have an answer to the question, what are
you doing about ending male violence against women and girls?
I think if we started to put the heat on our politicians, on our community leaders, I think we could push the dial so that we're not in a situation
where these little individual changes are what we're relying upon to move things forward. Actually, with doing the big picture structural stuff that
would change things and create a situation where men and women can live freely in society both as equal citizens, neither with a constant threat of
violence on their back.
AMANPOUR: Mandu, can I ask you something? You are the first black leader of a British political party. I know that you're going to be contesting in
the mayoral elections coming up. But I want to ask you, I don't want to sound insensitive, because the murder of anybody is a tragedy and what
happened to Sarah Everett is a tragedy and a crime, obviously.
There are many women of color who are saying that this happens in our community so often and we never get that attention and it happens all over
the world in countries of color, if you want to say that, whether it's India or Africa or wherever it is, it's happening to women all over the
world. And yet, it often doesn't reach the critical mass that this particular one has. Would -- do you agree with that and what needs to be
done to change that?
REID: Christiane, I am so glad you asked me that. I am so glad, on this program, you are acknowledging that pattern. It is a definite pattern and
it is a problem. And it's something -- you know, Jackson spoke about being honest, we need to be honest about this.
Just in the last 12 months, 119 women in the U.K. were killed by male violence and several of them were women of color, none of them gone at the
attention or the sort of public outpouring that this case has garnered. It's very similar to what happened -- you recall roughly three years ago,
three-and-a-half years ago, in relation to the -- when the #MeToo movement went viral. Many people don't realize that #MeToo actually began several
years before 2017, started by a black woman, focusing on issues that were affecting black women in her community around sexual harassment, sexual
violence, sexual abuse. But it took Hollywood celebrities magnifying the issue for the critical mass to happen for there to be an outpouring
certainly in Western countries in relation to this.
And I think we've all got a responsibility to, as I say, be honest about this. I think broadcasters, I think the media need to do a little bit of
self-reflection about how it is they choose to amplify some cases or not others. We need to look at when and where and why and how we actually care
and take notice when the police abuse their power. Just nine months ago, two sisters, they were black women in London, one murdered and the police
completely behaved apparently, they took selfies with the corpses of those sisters and they are in trouble for that now. They haven't been properly
disciplined for it. But that story only made a ripple, it didn't have the impact of the story we're discussing now.
So, I think it is a huge issue and I want to see all of us take responsibility for applying it into sectional lens and recognizing that
this violence affects all women.
AMANPOUR: Yes. So, Jackson, I want to ask you specifically how you think, beyond language, men can help. And let me just read you this. At some point
in the past two weeks after Sarah Everett's remains were found, #NotAllMen was at times trending higher than #SarahEverett. And men are asking
themselves amongst their friendship groups, in their families, what should we do, men who really want to help.
And, you know, you run mentors in violence prevention, it's one of the most influential, you know, gender programs in the United States. You work in
sports institutions. You work in the military. What have you discovered in your, you know, experience that that men can and should be doing to help?
KATZ: Well, I mean, first of all, we have to understand it as not just a men's issue but a leadership issue for men. This is about leadership. This
is about men's leadership at all levels, by the way, Christiane. And to Mandu's point, if men in positions of institutional leadership, both
political and education and sports, culture and media and in a labor union, I mean, there's men, obviously, there's women and people who aren't men or
women. But I'm focusing on men who are in positions of incredible influence within their institutional settings, within their communities, within their
religious institutions and organizations.
The first thing we need men to do is start talking about this and learning from women, from each other. I mean, we're not starting from scratch.
That's the other thing that I've noticed in my, you know, perusal of the social media after the Sarah Everett, you know, tragedy, is that we don't
have to start from scratch if we're trying to figure out what men can do. There's been -- there have been men working on this, not that -- not enough
of us. I appreciate and understand that. But there have been a number of us, many, dozens, hundreds, thousands around the world working on these
very questions for a long time so that men who want to join with us, if you will, don't have to start from scratch.
The other thing is, interpersonally, yes, we do need interpersonal stuff. We need men who have the courage and strength when they see stuff around
them, like men acting in ways that are perpetuating sexism and misogyny not just the actual overt act of aggression like a sexual assault in progress
or a domestic violence incident in progress but just checking your mates and your friends and your colleagues who are acting out and talking about
women and degrading waste, making it clear that you're not OK with that is -- if you take that on a micro level and expand that to the larger society,
if we can make it totally socially unacceptable for men to act out in sexism and misogynist ways, it will have an enormous impact.
And by the way, adult men have an enormous responsibility to young men and boys to not only teach them and educate them about how to treat everybody
with respect and dignity, but specifically how to challenge and interrupt their peers when they speak up -- you know, when they see a behavior around
them that's uncool because we can expect young guys to take risks in male peer cultures who have intense pressure on them if they don't see adult men
taking risks. And the challenge here is that we don't have enough adult men, including men in positions of significant, you know, cultural
political and social power who are willing to take those risks and just say some of the stuff.
One let one last piece I think it's related to the intersectional piece that Mandu said so well, this is very similar to white people and racism,
right? If you're a white person and you yourself don't act out in racist ways but you don't make it clear to other white people around you that
racism and enacting racist behaviors of any kind, institutionally or individually, is completely unacceptable, then in a sense, your silence is
a form of consent and complicity in their racism, and this is very similar to sexism.
So, men will say, well, listen, I don't rape women and I don't abuse my girlfriend or my wife. So, it's not my issue. That's as ignorant as saying
that, I'm a white person who doesn't burn crosses on my front lawn. So, therefore, I'm not -- racism is not my problem. We're in the 21st century,
we have accumulated wisdom of, you know, decades and centuries of human rights law and equality and justice rhetoric as well as practice and it's
time that we have more men who are willing to put that -- you know, put that, you know, rhetoric into action and actually act on those basic
AMANPOUR: Yes. It's really important to have this conversation and to keep having it. Jackson Katz, Mandu Reid, thank you both so much for joining us.
Now, the past pandemic year has challenged teaches like never before, many have lost their jobs with others forced to adapt to online learning classes
along with their students. Connecticut congresswoman, Jahana Hayes, has over 10 years' experience as a teacher. And in 2016, President Obama named
her National Teacher of the Year. Here she is now talking to our Michel Martin.
MICHEL MARTIN,CNNI CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Christiane. Representative Hayes, thank you so much for joining us.
REP. JAHANA HAYES (D-CT): Thank you so much for having me.
MARTIN: To start our conversation, I wanted to go back to your former life. I think people may remember that you were a highly regarded teacher,
in fact, you were National Teacher of the Year before you went to Congress in 2018. So, I wanted to ask you how are teachers doing? They've been very
much in the apex of this health crisis we've all been living through over the past year.
I mean, you know, on the one hand, you know, many of them are parents themselves and having to have their sort of adjust to online learning or
trying to adjust to, you know, distance learning themselves. How do you think it's been going?
HAYES: Well, first of all, I think teachers are amazing. But I'm biased, I've always thought that I could not have been more proud what teachers
manage to do. I also believe that it's not their job alone. The idea that people thought that, oh, it's just as easy to go to virtual as it is to
teach in-person, is just not true, you know that is a skill that needs to be practiced and mastered and really developed. So, teachers really have to
have the professional development and the infrastructure to support that.
So, now that we've seen just the tremendous equity gaps in so many of our communities, in so many of our schools that didn't have the digital
infrastructure, that didn't have, you know, proper ventilation or overcrowded classrooms where they couldn't socially distance, we really
have to address all of those things and support teachers. They should not be fighting for the things that we all know they need.
I was very pleased to see the conversation shift around vaccinating teachers. They should be treated as frontline and essential workers. And,
you know, now this new American rescue package has over $130 billion dollars to address some of the things that I've just described.
MARTIN: The latest U.S. Department of Labor estimates show that state and local education employment was down 8.8 percent in October from the
previous year, that represents the lowest national jobs total at that point in the schoolyear since 2000. What accounts for that? Is our teachers
leaving just because the stress of trying to take care of their families and do their jobs, health concerns? What's your understanding of why that's
HAYES: I think it's a combination of things. And I actually -- I don't want to say predicted, that's not the right -- but I foresaw this
happening, which is why I really pushed for legislation. I had a bill, The Save Education Jobs Act, to make sure that we could retain teacher
contracts, paraprofessionals, nurses, support services personnel, you know, like our guidance counselors and social workers. A lot of this is because
as local budgets became more and more uncertain, teaching -- you can't hire a teacher for a week. Generally, a contract is for a full year.
So, if a district was concerned about, will we be able to retain this teacher for a full year, they would not sign the contract or cut the
contract. And many of our teachers felt concerned about their own safety who are the primary caregivers for their own families or as their own
children switched to virtual learning, they could not leave them to go return to their job, so they had to make a really difficult choice. So, all
of these factors have to be considered as we figure out how to navigate our way out of this.
MARTIN: And as you know, you know, some parents are (INAUDIBLE) some demonstrations in some places, sometimes they're joined by students and a
number of your Republican colleagues and state and local officials blame Teachers' Unions for the current, you know, situation with, you know, the
frustration that a lot of parents are having, disconcerting. You know, they say and a number of governors have said, a number of your Republican
colleagues have said that they think that the teachers have had too much sway over keeping the schools closed and that they think that, you know,
that they've been an impediment to getting the economy back moving because parents have no place for their kids to be. And what do you say to that?
HAYES: First of all, I say to my Republican colleagues, to local leaders, to whoever is engaging in this conversation that Teachers' Unions are the
teachers. So, the same people that they're saying are an impediment to reopening school are the people you want to send your kids back to, the
people who care about your kids in care about their health and wellbeing.
These are legitimate concerns that teachers had. They were asked -- everybody wanted schools to reopen and everybody right now wants schools to
reopen. But our teachers were being asked to make these decisions absent all of the supporting structures that were necessary to do it safely. And
that's not fair to ask anyone to do. So, now, that we are allocating funds for PPE, of making sure that we have more transportation for kids, making
sure that we can socially distance them and provide the supports, teachers are more willing to return to the classroom.
But that was a really unfair ask to say, we want the economy to open. So, we need for schools to open. However, we don't have any specific plans or
have not put any resources in place. That's just not fair. And our teachers who belong to Teachers Unions really were using their voice to ask
legitimate questions that were necessary to keep them and their families safe and in turn keep, their students safe.
So, I think it really is an unfair assessment and I struggle with that because these are the same people who months ago, we were hailing as heroes
for taking on the herculean task of doing whatever was necessary to meet the needs of their students and literally, in the space of just a few
months, now, they're selfish and an impediment to opening schools. And that really has been a narrative surrounding this profession for a very long
time and that's just not fair.
MARTIN: Why do you think there's such a different view of the role that teachers have played over the course of this last year and their
expectations and requests?
HAYES: I think it's always been that way, which is why I was very surprise when I ran for Congress, coming into Congress, how few people have actual
classroom experience. I heard people talking about, well, they can just space the kids out 6 feet and open the windows. And my question is, when's
the last time you've been in a school building? Because some of our schools don't even have windows that open, or I can tell you from my own personal
experience, if all of my students were in school on the same day, I didn't have enough desks.
I had a student sitting at my desk and I was circulating the room and I borrowed a chair from next door and had three students at the front table.
That really is the reality of most of our educators. So, this idea that people are taking just a snippet of information and then forming an
opinion, we can't legislate without teacher input, without teacher voice, without really having -- I mean, I heard many of my colleagues suggest
things and I said, that's extremely well intentioned and I know what you're trying to do but let me help you understand what that looks like by the
time it gets to the classroom.
And I think that's why representation matters. It really is important to have people just from all walks of life, all professions, all background in
these legislative bodies because we are tasked with making very important decisions and we need all of the information to do that.
MARTIN: Your colleague, Representative Katie Porter pointed out, you know, she's the -- I believe, the only currently serving single mother of young
children in Congress, and she points out that there's a class difference, that a lot of members of Congress right now, at this point in history, are
quite wealthy, they're quite wealthy individuals and maybe their kids go to private school or they just have a very different kind of personal
financial situation and I just wonder if, you know, that you just -- these just aren't, you know, personal to them and I wonder if you've experienced
that yourself and do you have the same observation? Do you think that's part of it?
HAYES: Oh, there's definitely a class difference. I have a young son who's in school right now. But as a single mother, this pandemic would have been
untenable for me to try to take care of him, support his schooling and still be required to be in-person at work or even logged in at work.
I know so many of my friends who, even if they have a home computer, they may only have one. So, if they have multiple children or if there's
multiple people logged on to the internet, their experience is just going to be different.
So, Representative Porter is absolutely right, there is a class difference. And those are the experiences of the majority of people who are relying on
our public-school systems. You know, our -- many of our smaller private schools were able to reopen but by design, they have smaller enrollment,
they -- many of them have this -- the children of parents who have jobs that they can work remotely or they can afford to -- they're not the
frontline workers that we're talking about.
And then couple that with the other pieces, the trauma. You have so many kids who see their parents unemployed or out of work for the first time,
parents who are visiting food banks. Kids cannot learn when they're dealing with all of those family and societal issues. So, it's not just geography.
It's not like if you put kids back in the building then the learning resumes. They are going to have -- be returning from what is likely the
most traumatic incident of their life, you know, worried about their family's health and wellbeing, worried about their family's economic
future, you know, worry if they're going to have enough food. Those are all real factors that are impediments to student learning. And for so many
people in our country, that is front and center before everything else.
MARTIN: I want to hear more about the COVID relief plan that was just passed by Congress. It's a huge bill. I mean, it's a huge piece of
legislation, you know, $1.9 trillion dollars. Many, many moving parts to it. So, I'm just going to ask you to tell me what you think the most
important parts of it are.
HAYES: It is a huge bill. I could -- I don't -- I couldn't even fathom that $1.9 trillion dollar. But when you start to break it apart, I think
what I am most proud of is that most of this addresses the needs of everyday people. You know, so many people say, what does this have to do
with COVID, but there's an intersection between everything that we're talking about in this bill that was impacted by COVID. You know, the rental
relied, the SNAP benefits, the 15 percent pandemic EBT plus up (ph) that people got. That will be a lifesaver for people.
As you know, I just talked at length about the education funding, this is perhaps the largest investment in education that we've made. And a lot of
this not only addresses the short-term issue but many of the long-term gaps that I've been shouting from the rooftops that have been present. This bill
will allow schools to update their infrastructure, their ventilation systems. This bill will set aside money for a long-term learning loss, for
those afterschool programs and wraparound programs.
I think though, the thing that really just -- I don't even know how to describe it. I talked about it in church yesterday to one of my -- to some
of the people there, the Child Tax Credit, which just would have been a lifesaver for me as a single mom. You know, I was working two jobs and
going to school and just still trying to make ends meet.
This Child Tax Credit is likely to -- I think they said it will lift about 40 percent of children out of poverty. The fact that in one fell swoop, we
as a country, can lift almost half of our kids out of poverty, I think it's something that -- and I don't think we hear enough about that part of the
bill, but it is incredible to think about. You know, that really will address many people's childcare needs. So many of our parents who are
frontline workers, our -- work in the service industry and have to return to work. Childcare was a big issue. From the beginning of this pandemic,
the big problem with closing schools was that parents now couldn't work.
So, for the people who really need that assistance to have that boost, you know, in periodic payments throughout the year, I think is a lifesaver for
so many other people.
MARTIN: As I think, most people know by now, that no Republicans voted for this bill. And one of the arguments that they made is it isn't really about
COVID relied, this is really more about policy priorities that Democrats have had for a long time and that they use this this bill as a vehicle to
accomplish that. What do you say to that?
HAYES: I think this pandemic has just exacerbated so many inequities and our society. Everything is about COVID relief. Many of these families, the
fact that they didn't have enough savings to last more than eight days being out of work was a problem, you know, the fact that people had to go
to a food bank because they didn't have food, the fact that people who lost their jobs or became unemployed immediately lost their insurance and that
helped the spread of this virus because people couldn't get tested, they couldn't get health care. There are so many things that -- there's a nexus
between what happened with COVID and all of these inequalities that already existed.
So, for my Republican colleagues, we cannot just vaccinate people have testing. We have to help people to stand again and at a time of
unprecedented challenges. We have a once in a lifetime pandemic, once in 100 years. Government has to have a bold response to this.
I was very disappointed that no one -- no Republican in Congress voted for this, and I heard them say over and over, we've passed previous bills were
all bipartisan, and I believe it's because, you know, as a Democrat, I don't care who got the credit, I don't care who signed the check, my
constituents needed help, they need it support and I needed to work in Congress to do whatever I needed to do.
I don't know how I could have come home having voted no to this. You know, I have Republicans, Democrats, first selectman from red cities and blue
towns, it doesn't matter, all of them were saying, we need help, we need for Congress to act. We don't know how we're going to survive without some
type of intervention. I don't know how I could have come home and said, I just walked away from the whole package. I voted no to this package.
So, this is -- every part of this is about COVID. You know, had we addressed the infrastructure problems in our school, maybe our kids would
have been able to return sooner. Had we addressed the digital divide, maybe virtual learning would have been more successful. So, we know too much to
go back to March of 2020. If we are not invested in saying, OK. How do we try to just make sure that this doesn't happen again? That's, I think, is
MARTIN: We are in a moment where many people believe or have been encouraged to believe that government does not work, and that's both on the
left and on the right. And I'm wondering if you think that if this relief package, the American Rescue Plan, which is just adopted by the Congress
and signed by the president, will that encourage people to take a different look at government, at the role of government in their lives?
HAYES: Absolutely. I mean, I know that good government works. I have been the beneficiary of good government, you know, someone who went to a
community -- started at a community college using student loans, who, as a single mother, relied on food stamps, who really worked my way up the
ladder with -- you know, I feel like this should not be permanent solutions.
They're temporary solution so that people can stand on their own and then those people become contributors in their community. I think that really
has been my life story, and that can be possible for so many other people if we just provide, I guess, just some stability. Help people get back on
their feet the same way that we provide that stability to businesses. We've bailed out the auto industry, the banking industry, the housing industry.
We've done it so many other times. We need to shift our focus to -- I don't even like the word bailout -- to supporting our people. And I think that's
what this bill does and I think the direct impact will be felt by so many people that people will say, you know, government stepped in and then my
life was better.
MARTIN: Congresswoman Jahana Hayes, thank you so much for talking with us today.
HAYES: Thank you. Thanks for having me. Be safe.
AMANPOUR: And that's it for now. Thank you for watching and goodbye from London.