Author: lthistle@whyy.org

  • Here to Help: Jennifer Timmick guides visitors through the stories of American history

    Transcript:

    SCOTT DETROW, HOST:

    This week, the U.S. will celebrate its 250th anniversary. Among the many ways the semiquincentennial milestone is being marked in Washington, D.C. – a special exhibit at the Smithsonian Castle displaying artifacts like the portable desk where Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence. But history is more than objects.

    JENNIFER TIMMICK: These things tell the stories of people. Our history is just the stories of things that people say and things that people do, and they fascinate me.

    DETROW: That’s Jennifer Timmick. She’s volunteered at the National Museum of American History since 2013. And for the past few years, Timmick has been giving tours to visitors.

    TIMMICK: I always thought those people who give tours are awesome. Someday, I would love to do that. And then I finally got up the courage to do the training and learn the facts and the skills and whatever it is that you need to just walk around and tell stories. And I love, love, love doing it.

    DETROW: We accompanied her on a tour for our series on volunteerism called Here to Help.

    TIMMICK: Julia Child changes the way we cook, and – yes?

    UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #1: What’s the dog for?

    TIMMICK: Oh, the dog. I’m so glad you asked about the dog. The dog’s name is Stubby. The dog was also in World War I. He got smuggled over by a soldier who kind of adopted him as his…

    This is one of our most popular objects. It’s the ruby slippers from “The Wizard Of Oz.”

    Personally, my role is – I love this museum and I want you visitors also to love it as much as I do. So anything I can do to help you appreciate the awesomeness of what is here. To me, you have to know where you came from to know where you’re going. All of these stories of me talking about people who have changed American history, a lot of these are ordinary people.

    We used to call it the five-and-dime.

    UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #2: We did.

    TIMMICK: It’s like a – I mean, it has a little bit of everything, but it also has a lunch counter. If you’re shopping…

    The Greensboro lunch counter is one of my favorites because the power of those four young men just amazes me, and what they did and the change that they made.

    We are in an exhibit called the Presidency, and…

    Friday night of the performance, President Lincoln and Mrs. Lincoln and their guests take a carriage from the White House to the theater. They actually arrive late. The play has already started.

    So, you know, our country has been divided many times. Obviously, it’s not just a straight line. We go forward and we go backward, and our country is divided and together all throughout, many times. I know I’ve done a successful tour if I look back and I see people who were random strangers an hour ago talking to each other. I’m calling that success because to me, if we can just keep talking to each other, then we – we’ll be OK.

    Thank you all so much for sticking with me. You guys were great.

    UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #3: Thank you.

    (APPLAUSE)

    TIMMICK: Thank you. Thank you for spending time here with us in this museum. Just by you…

    DETROW: Jennifer Timmick is a volunteer at the National Museum of American History. You can find more stories of volunteerism in America at npr.org/heretohelp.

    (SOUNDBITE OF ARC DE SOLEIL’S “GOT CAUGHT IN AMSTERDAM”)

  • Minneapolis Fed president reacts to Supreme Court ruling

    Transcript:

    SCOTT DETROW, HOST:

    We’re going to hear a reaction to one of today’s rulings, the ruling about the Federal Reserve. Neel Kashkari is president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. As we’ve heard the Supreme Court rule, the Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook can keep her job, following President Trump’s move to fire her, at least for now. Neel Kashkari, thanks for joining us.

    NEEL KASHKARI: Thanks for having me.

    DETROW: What was your overall reaction to this decision?

    KASHKARI: I was relieved. I was relieved when the majority opinion – or the majority of the court went to great lengths to explain why independent monetary policy, monetary policy independent of short-term political considerations, is not only of paramount importance for the economy today, but it’s rooted in American history. And I was gratified that the court understood why that is so important.

    DETROW: As we heard, though, this was a narrow decision, essentially, that Lisa Cook didn’t receive due process. She could still be fired, theoretically, if the lower court determines she committed mortgage fraud, which she denies. Are you worried about that outcome?

    KASHKARI: Well, I have to defer to the lawyers to sort out those details, but I think at the end of the day, the Supreme Court has clearly expressed its – you know, it segmented the Federal Reserve from all of the other independent or formally independent agencies. And it said that monetary policy has this unique history in America and it should be kept independent of the political process. The fact that the court so strongly reached that conclusion, which I, of course, agree with, that gives me great comfort that whatever may come forward, that they are going to do their best within the bounds of the law and the Constitution to keep the Fed independent. And I feel good about that.

    DETROW: So despite the fact that this was a narrow ruling on the legal side of things, you feel like – you read this, you see this opinion, and you feel like this is a clear-cut vote for an independent Fed?

    KASHKARI: Exactly. Yes.

    DETROW: You know, I do want to ask. You and Governor Cook are both members of the Federal Open Market Committee, the group that meets eight times a year to set monetary policy, including interest rates. Have you discussed this case with her? Has she said anything to you about her concerns about this case as it played out?

    KASHKARI: You know, Lisa is not only a colleague. She’s a friend. I’ve talked to her a number of times on a personal level just saying, hey, how are you doing? How are you hanging in there? She’s been under enormous pressure. I think that she has carried herself – first of all, she’s done her job throughout this process. She comes, you know, fully prepared to her FOMC meetings. She fully contributes with very rich and robust analysis backing up her views. And so I think I’ve just shared with her my admiration for the way that she’s continued to do her job, given the pressure that she’s been under, and that’s really been the extent of our conversations.

    DETROW: For people who don’t follow this as closely, why, to you is an independent Fed so important? And why was this such a dangerous case?

    KASHKARI: Well, what history has shown, not just in America but around the world, is that politicians of both sides of the aisle, both leanings, would prefer when they’re in power to have lower interest rates to boost the economy, to make their constituents happy and boost their political chances. And when central banks have acted in terms of – in favor of politics over analysis and data, it ends up leading to much worse economic outcomes for the public over the long term. It leads to higher inflation. It leads to more volatility. It can even lead to financial crises. And so every single advanced economy in the world has adopted the view that monetary policy should be kept independent of short-term political considerations, and the Supreme Court did its part today to affirm that view.

    DETROW: I mean, given how central interest rates were to all of this and the pressure that President Trump was putting on the Fed to lower them, I am curious. You’ve made comments in the past. You know, given what is happening with inflation, how likely is Trump to get his way as the rest of the year plays out?

    KASHKARI: Well, I mean, we’re all going to focus on the data. I certainly am, and I know my colleagues on the Federal Open Market Committee are. And inflation is still too high. And if we look at most of the readings of inflation, it’s not moving down. It’s moving sideways or maybe even moving up. It’s not just related to oil. I mean, oil prices are a big driver of inflation, but so is what we call services inflation, which is not directly related to oil or energy prices. And so there are a lot of factors that have been pushing inflation higher. Inflation has been too high for five years. The American people really don’t like high inflation. And we have a job to do, and that’s get inflation back down to our 2% target. And I know that we are committed to doing so.

    DETROW: I wanted to ask about the other case that we heard about. I’m curious – have you had a chance to think about this economically? Do you have any concerns about what this ruling about broader regulatory agencies could mean for the economy if suddenly these agencies that have a big say over commerce can suddenly be a lot more at the whim of a current administration?

    KASHKARI: You know, I think it’ll lead to more volatility in the economy. We hear about this in different sectors where there are regulatory policies that Congress passes for, let’s say, a two-year period or a four-year period, and then it’s due to renewal, and there’s uncertainty about whether Congress would renew it. And many businesses say, hey, we can’t make long-term investment decisions if we don’t know that the regulatory apparatus is going to be consistent for the life of our investment, say, a 10-year investment. If we end up in a world where every four years or every eight years, the pendulum swings dramatically across different sectors of the economy, I think it would lead to more volatility, and that could be more challenging environment for businesses to make long-term investment decisions.

    DETROW: Neel Kashkari is president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Thank you so much for talking to us.

    KASHKARI: Thank you for having me.

    (SOUNDBITE OF THE OFFLINE’S “LES DUNES”)

  • As the Trump administration targets funding, scientists look beyond the U.S. to work

    Transcript:

    SCOTT DETROW, HOST:

    A growing number of research scientists in the United States are moving their labs to other countries. NPR’s Jon Hamilton reports on three U.S. researchers heading for the United Kingdom.

    JON HAMILTON, BYLINE: For decades, the U.S. was seen as a nation that prized its universities and scientists. Megan Peters, a cognitive scientist at the University of California, Irvine, thinks that changed when President Trump began his second term.

    MEGAN PETERS: It became very apparent very quickly that the new administration did not value higher education, and not only did they not value it, but they actively were trying to dismantle it and to dismantle scientific research that goes along with that.

    HAMILTON: Grants were delayed or terminated, universities came under fire, and government agencies like the National Institutes of Health were reshaped to reflect White House priorities. The Department of Health and Human Services, which runs the NIH, says it is focusing on gold standard science, reducing bureaucracy and conducting essential research at a more practical cost. Peters, who studies how the brain deals with uncertainty, had already been considering options beyond her tenured position at UC Irvine. Now she was having doubts about any job in the U.S.

    PETERS: So when I went on the job market, I started looking around overseas.

    HAMILTON: Meanwhile, overseas universities had begun stepping up efforts to recruit international scientists. Steve Fleming is a professor at University College London who had worked with Peters. He realized it might be possible to bring her to the school’s department of experimental psychology.

    STEVE FLEMING: I was aware that a role had – was going to be advertised in that department, and we started having a conversation about how that could be a good fit for her.

    HAMILTON: It helped that groups like the U.K.’s Royal Society and the European Research Council had begun offering grants designed to attract international scientists like Peters, and she was interested, even though the move would mean a pay cut.

    PETERS: London was a big draw in general and University College London, in particular, was a huge draw scientifically and professionally.

    HAMILTON: So this summer, Peters and her partner are moving to London. She says one benefit of her position there will be the ability to tap into new funding sources.

    PETERS: There are certainly opportunities that are not available to me here in the United States that I will now be eligible for, and that is – that’s a big part of this draw.

    HAMILTON: Steve Fleming says Peters is just one of the U.S. scientists expected to arrive this summer.

    FLEMING: There are two other individuals, high-profile recruits from the U.S. Both had tenure.

    HAMILTON: Such moves reflect a shift among U.S. researchers. The journal Nature found that in the first quarter of 2025, U.S.-based scientists submitted nearly a third more applications for overseas jobs than they had the previous year. A survey of academic researchers last year showed that 75% were considering leaving the U.S. Tamara Swaab and her husband, Ron Mangun, are neuroscientists who spent more than three decades at the University of California, Davis before deciding to take jobs at the University of Birmingham in the U.K. Swaab, who got her Ph.D. in the Netherlands, says one reason she came to the U.S. was that back then, Europe was less accepting of women scientists.

    TAMARA SWAAB: What I always loved about science in the United States was how open it was and how people saw opportunities and would work for them, and there was this optimism.

    HAMILTON: Now, Swaab says, that optimism is more present in British and European scientists. Also, the University of Birmingham was able to offer her husband a grant from the U.K.’s newly created Global Talent Fund. But Mangun says their move is more than just a reaction to the current state of science in the U.S.

    RON MANGUN: It certainly is a factor. Was it the factor or was it the motivating factor for me? I’d say the answer to that was no.

    HAMILTON: Mangun says the big attraction was trying something new while still maintaining ties with UC Davis. He also thinks voters in the U.S. will eventually restore the nation’s commitment to research.

    MANGUN: They want science. They want exploration. They want discovery. They want cures, and I think they’re going to demand it.

    HAMILTON: When that happens, he says, U.S. scientists will have more reason to stay. Jon Hamilton, NPR News.

  • In Lebanon, deal with Israel sparks anger and doubts

    Transcript:

    SCOTT DETROW, HOST:

    Israel and Lebanon have agreed on a road map for ending the war that has killed thousands of Lebanese people. Israel has destroyed whole villages and occupied large parts of Southern Lebanon in its military campaign against the Hezbollah militia. In signing the U.S.-brokered agreement, Lebanon’s ambassador to the U.S., Nada Moawad, called this a first step.

    (SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

    NADA MOAWAD: The first step on the road to restoring Lebanese sovereignty and territorial integrity.

    DETROW: But Hezbollah immediately rejected the agreement. And in Lebanon, as NPR’s Ruth Sherlock reports, it’s been widely attacked as unworkable.

    RUTH SHERLOCK, BYLINE: Even with the deal between Israel and Lebanon signed, Israeli drones still circle – menacing – over Beirut.

    (SOUNDBITE OF DRONES FLYING OVERHEAD)

    SHERLOCK: Outside Lebanon’s Parliament, protesters against the agreement blast songs celebrating the fight against Israel.

    (SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

    UNIDENTIFIEDI MUSICAL ARTIST: (Singing in non-English language).

    SHERLOCK: Hezbollah’s leader, Naim Qassem, has called it, quote, “a surrender of Lebanese sovereignty.” It’s a view widely shared across Lebanon.

    SELENA NASIR: It is not in the interest of the Lebanese. And it is not in the interest of Lebanon.

    SHERLOCK: This is Selena Nasir (ph), a Lebanese human rights expert now focused on the war in the south. The agreement makes Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon conditional on Hezbollah giving up its weapons. Israel claims it’s weakened the Iranian-backed militia enough that the Lebanese army can enforce this. Nasir says this is simply not the case. The Lebanese military is small, with limited combat experience.

    NASIR: The Lebanese state will not be able to disarm Hezbollah, and therefore, the Israeli army will not do their commitments of redeployment and allowing people to return to their villages.

    SHERLOCK: All over Beirut, crammed into courtyards between skyscrapers and along the seafront, are tents housing those whose homes in south Lebanon have been destroyed in the bombardment or are now beyond their reach in territory occupied by the Israeli army. These are the people most affected by the deal.

    Hi.

    IMAN HAREZ: (Non-Enlish language spoken).

    SHERLOCK: Four-year-old Selene (ph) comes up to us shyly, as we speak with her mother, Iman Harez (ph).

    HAREZ: (Non-Enlish language spoken).

    SHERLOCK: “This little one has lived through two wars,” Harez says – this one and the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah a few years ago.

    HAREZ: (Non-Enlish language spoken).

    SHERLOCK: She says her daughter knows what to do when she hears a warplane – rush to try to shelter against a wall. All this suffering has bolstered support for Hezbollah by many who see the militia as stopping Israel from taking more land. Ali Shaito (ph), a mechanical engineer and refugee from the south says, especially now, it’s unthinkable to disarm the group.

    ALI SHAITO: No one could take the weapon of Hezbollah.

    SHERLOCK: And in Lebanon, a country of many religions with a history of sectarian violence, if the Lebanese army tries to remove Hezbollah’s weapons, Shaito warns, it could push the country to civil war.

    SHAITO: To have a war between each other, not with another country. (Non-Enlish language spoken)..

    SHERLOCK: A few meters away, Mohammad Asmar (ph) sits on an orange sofa outside a tent he shares with his wife and three young children. A Lebanese flag flutters in the breeze.

    MOHAMMAD ASMAR: (Non-Enlish language spoken).

    SHERLOCK: Asmar says he put up the flag even before the tent and that he would like to see a strong Lebanon, where the army controls its borders.

    ASMAR: (Non-Enlish language spoken).

    SHERLOCK: He served in the Lebanese army for 14 years. He’s also a Shia Muslim from the south, the block from which Hezbollah draws much support. When asked if he were in the military today, if he would carry out orders to disarm Hezbollah, he avoids giving a clear answer.

    Ruth Sherlock, NPR News, Beirut.

  • The Gambler 500 rally combines trash pickup and old cars

    Transcript:

    SCOTT DETROW, HOST:

    Cleaning up road trash often involves people in orange vests walking along a highway with those little grabbers and plastic bags. In Oregon, there is an annual trash pickup event that’s more like a party. Thousands of people come together to drive hundreds of miles of forest service roads, picking up trash by day and then camping out with live music at night. KUOW’s Matt Martin was there this weekend.

    (SOUNDBITE OF ITEM BANGING IN DUMPSTER)

    MATT MARTIN, BYLINE: That’s trash crashing into a huge dumpster in a field in the small town of Madras, Oregon. It’s part of the Gambler 500. The gimmick is to buy a junky car for $500 and gamble on whether or not you can get it running. Once you do, you take that car to race on public lands and collect as much garbage as possible.

    (SOUNDBITE OF MUSICAL HORN HONKING)

    UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Woah.

    MARTIN: These cars are heavily modified and painted wild colors. A truck with a dragon on the hood that spits real flames or a car frame with a boat Frankensteined (ph) onto it, known as a Lam-boat-ghini (ph). Tate Morgan founded the Gambler 500. He says it’s a way to gamify public service.

    TATE MORGAN: It’s the “Mary Poppins,” you know, a spoonful of sugar thing, you know? If you just said, hey, let’s go pick up trash, you would get a half a dozen people. But if you set up this big, cool challenge where people could let their freak flag fly and build crazy, weird cars and not be put in a box, then this is what happens.

    (SOUNDBITE OF MUSICAL HORN HONKING)

    MARTIN: It really is a party. RVs and tents dot the field. There are food vendors and concerts. It’s like Burning Man meets “Mad Max” meets the Sierra Club. Robert Kenton wears a top hat and jacket covered in patches from past Gambler events. He’s never missed one since 2018. He says all the regulars have grown up and experienced life together.

    ROBERT KENTON: We’ve gotten married. We’ve gotten divorced. We’ve had kids – you know, cancer, births, suicides, stuff like that. So we all kind of just become this kind of weirdly dysfunctional off-roading group family.

    MARTIN: The Gambler 500 has spread beyond Oregon. Satellite groups have popped up from California to New York. Tate Morgan is happy his idea has taken hold.

    MORGAN: I think we’ve also addressed a certain portion of our society and outdoor users who didn’t fit in the archetype of how people wanted to define environmentalists and stewardship.

    MARTIN: These gamblers have removed more than 5 million pounds from public lands in Oregon over the years – a testament to the group’s slogan, ABG – always be gambling.

    For NPR News, I’m Matt Martin in Madras, Oregon.

    (SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

  • The Supreme Court says grace periods for mail-in ballots are legal

    Transcript:

    SCOTT DETROW, HOST:

    The conservative Supreme Court took sides against the Republican Party in a ruling today. The case was about mail-in voting. The court upheld a Mississippi law that allows election officials to count mail-in ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but received after Election Day. Here to explain the court’s ruling is NPR political correspondent Ashley Lopez. Hey, Ashley.

    ASHLEY LOPEZ, BYLINE: Hey there.

    DETROW: Tell us more about the case.

    LOPEZ: Yeah. So this case was centered on a Mississippi law that allows election administrators to count postmarked ballots that arrive up to five days after Election Day. The Republican National Committee and the Trump campaign filed a challenge to that law before the 2024 election, arguing that these sorts of grace periods for voters amount to an unlawful extension of elections. They argued that Congress sets an election day, and counting votes after that jeopardizes the integrity of American elections.

    DETROW: And it seems like the court’s majority did not buy that argument.

    LOPEZ: They did not. In a 5-4 ruling where two conservative justices, Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts, sided with the liberal wing of the court, they said that Mississippi’s law isn’t violating federal statute. Justice Barrett authored this opinion. She wrote that states have the right to maintain some latitude in how they run their elections, which includes how they run their mail-in ballot programs. And while this might be out of step with President Trump and some GOP officials, this is actually, historically, a pretty conservative principle. The majority also said in clear language that voting is happening when voters fill out a ballot, not when ballots are making their way through the mail.

    DETROW: I mean, the split from the conservatives to the court is pretty interesting, but I’m curious what the reaction has been from conservatives not sitting in the Supreme Court.

    LOPEZ: Yeah. Well, I mean, President Trump was obviously upset, right? He renewed his call to severely restrict mail-in ballots nationwide, even though he often votes by mail himself. He also urged Congress to pass an elections overhaul bill that, so far, has gone nowhere in the Senate and notably doesn’t include anything about ballot receipt deadlines.

    There is Mississippi’s Republican governor, too, Tate Reeves. Even though the court upheld his state’s own law, he said he disagreed with the ruling and plans to get rid of the state’s grace period. He said this is a COVID-era law that doesn’t need to stay in place. I think it’s worth noting the Republican-led state legislature could have changed the law years ago, but this case was part of a larger GOP effort to undermine access to mail-in voting that just didn’t pan out in this case.

    DETROW: Because of the way that President Trump attacks this, this gets a lot of attention, but how many voters are we really talking about – big picture – who have their mail ballots arrive after Election Day?

    LOPEZ: You know, so right now, 18 states and territories have a grace period for most voters casting ballots by mail. And it’s even more voters when you factor in people overseas, including members of the military. A good example of this is Washington state. In 2024, a quarter million mail-in ballots were counted that were received after Election Day. So I mean, it’s a pretty significant number of people who could have been affected.

    DETROW: Interesting. Tell me more about how this would affect people beyond voters – right? – like election officials.

    LOPEZ: Yeah. I mean, this would have been a big change for them. This could have been a lot of chaos – right? – especially in states that have universal mail-in ballot programs. I’ve seen statements from various secretaries of state that say that educating voters about changes to deadlines would have been, like, this huge undertaking ahead of the midterms. And look, there’s data that suggests that voters, in general, adapt to tighter deadlines over time, but changing the rules so close to an election could create a lot of upheaval in some states. So voting rights advocates say they’re relieved the court did not side with Republicans on this.

    DETROW: NPR’s Ashley Lopez, thank you so much.

    LOPEZ: Yeah. Thank you.

  • ‘They can kill you’: African migrants fear a surge in xenophobic violence in South Africa

    Transcript:

    SCOTT DETROW, HOST:

    There is a rising wave of xenophobic violence in South Africa as some locals blame migrants from other African countries for unemployment, crime and other social problems. Foreign-owned businesses have been attacked. People have been chased from their homes. Several migrants have been killed. Kate Bartlett in Johannesburg reports that the xenophobic group leading the charge has given foreigners until June 30 to leave the country or else.

    (SOUNDBITE OF POWER TOOL RUNNING)

    KATE BARTLETT, BYLINE: A group of men are hard at work in a makeshift carpentry and upholstery workshop in Jeppestown, a rundown suburb east of Johannesburg’s city center. They’re all immigrants to South Africa, mainly from Zimbabwe and Malawi – some legal, some not. And the upbeat music streaming from the radio belies the apprehension they’re feeling.

    VICTOR SITHOLE: We’re all scared. I’ve got quite a lot of friends who’ve been affected. Their homes have been destroyed, their businesses.

    BARTLETT: Victor (ph) Sithole is a 55-year-old upholsterer from Zimbabwe who came to South Africa decades ago. He has a residence permit but says he doesn’t believe that will protect him if the xenophobic groups who’ve been marching in the area pass by. He likens South Africa to conflict zone.

    UNIDENTIFIED PROTESTERS #1: (Chanting in non-English language).

    BARTLETT: Anti-immigrant protesters have taken hold in South Africa, marching in cities across the country, chanting, mabahambe – a Zulu phrase meaning they must go.

    UNIDENTIFIED PROTESTER: (Shouting) Go back to your countries. We are tired of you guys. Go back to your countries.

    BARTLETT: In Durban, thousands of Malawians who have fled their homes to escape the violence are in makeshift camps, in winter, waiting for their country to send buses to rescue them. Nigeria and Ghana weren’t waiting, and they’ve already repatriated their citizens who wanted to leave.

    (SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

    UNIDENTIFIED PROTESTERS #2: (Shouting in non-English language).

    BARTLETT: Their fears are valid. In 2008, xenophobic riots left more than 60 dead, some burned alive by mobs, and tens of thousands displaced. This year, so far, several Mozambicans and a Malawian have been killed, according to South African authorities. The main xenophobic movement is called March and March. It’s led by this media-savvy, former radio presenter from Durban, named Jacinta Ngobese-Zuma.

    JACINTA NGOBESE-ZUMA: South Africa will be great again. It just needs all of us to rise and defeat our enemy, and God bless South Africa.

    BARTLETT: Groups like this blame immigrants for stealing jobs and the country’s high crime levels. South Africa’s official unemployment rate is one of the worst in the world. Sixty percent of young people don’t have work, but the data shows neither unemployment nor crime can be blamed solely on immigrants. South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa has tried to calm tensions.

    (SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

    PRESIDENT CYRIL RAMAPHOSA: We recognize that many communities are frustrated by crime, unemployment and the pressure on public services.

    BARTLETT: But migrants who NPR spoke to in Johannesburg say it might be too little too late. In the inner-city suburb of Yeoville, I met Bona Mapezi Bahati from the Democratic Republic of Congo. She’s 33 and heavily pregnant.

    BONA MAPEZI BAHATI: (Speaking Swahili).

    BARTLETT: Speaking Swahili, she tells me how she fled Eastern Congo in her teens after being gang raped by a militia group. She made her way to South Africa 15 years ago and initially had an asylum seeker visa. That’s expired, and she’s in bureaucratic limbo.

    BAHATI: (Speaking Swahili).

    BARTLETT: And now, she says there’s this new threat from anti-immigrant groups.

    BAHATI: (Speaking Swahili).

    BARTLETT: “I feel so sad, especially as I’m pregnant,” she says, struggling to hold back tears. “It’s like I’m in Congo. I feel like it’s a war zone here. I’m scared they’ll kill me.” Kate Bartlett, NPR News, Johannesburg.

    (SOUNDBITE OF ARC DE SOLEIL’S “MIDNIGHT SAQQARA”)

  • Sing-along time at a memory cafe is a highlight for people dealing with dementia

    Transcript:

    SCOTT DETROW, HOST:

    Dementia can cause people to turn inward and become isolated. Their caregivers can feel lonely and stressed as well. A growing number of social support groups are using music to bring joy and connections to those struggling with memory loss and their caregivers as well. Vermont Public’s Nina Keck has more.

    UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Hey, Jerry. I’m getting your coffee ready.

    NINA KECK, BYLINE: It’s late morning, and the downstairs meeting room at St. Luke’s Episcopal Church in Chester, Vermont, is filling up. There’s an easy banter as couples arrive, grab coffee and settle around a large table. Then Martha Mitchell straps on her guitar.

    MARTHA MITCHELL: OK, so let’s start with a song. Do we want to start with “Peace In Our Hearts,” which Diane and John taught us?

    KECK: The simple song kicks off two hours of music and camaraderie.

    MITCHELL: It goes like this.

    (Singing) We’re going to…

    MARTHA MITCHELL AND UNIDENTIFIED PEOPLE: (Singing) …Walk together arm and arm with peace in our hearts. We’re going to walk together…

    KECK: This monthly gathering is what’s known as a memory cafe. They offer support and activities designed for people with dementia and their caregivers. According to the American Music Therapy Association, a growing number are including music. In fact, of the nearly 600 memory cafes listed in Dementia Friendly America’s national database, 100 incorporate music. Diane Holme of Springfield, Vermont, says it’s what brings her and her husband, John, back every month to this group.

    DIANE HOLME: Because John enjoys, as you’ve seen, the singing. I enjoy the time we have to share with other caregivers. You don’t have to say much because they know exactly what you’re talking about. And it’s a place where you can be honest.

    KECK: John is a retired attorney who says he’s outlived a lot of his friends. Like many people in this group, his memory and mobility problems are getting worse.

    JOHN HOLME: The only thing that helps a lot is singing. When we singing with Martha, that really helps because it kind of raises my spirits.

    MITCHELL AND UNIDENTIFIED PEOPLE: (Singing) Country roads, take me home to the place I belong. West Virginia, mountain mama.

    KECK: John Yaffee agrees. He worked as a nurse before being diagnosed with frontal temporal (ph) and vascular dementia in his late 50s.

    JOHN YAFFEE: I feel my heartbeat beating slower, and I just feel so much happier. Like, it brings out the happy hormones in my brain, I’m thinking.

    KECK: Yaffee’s right. Music can trigger the release of hormones and neurotransmitters that boost mood, reduce stress and improve emotional wellbeing. For people with dementia, there are even more benefits. Brain imaging shows listening to familiar or meaningful music can strengthen neural connections, particularly in areas that support memory and attention. It’s visceral, says song leader Martha Mitchell.

    MITCHELL: Music is phenomenal. It touches the nonphysical part of the body. It gives you access to feelings that you can’t access any other way.

    KECK: Like when you hear a favorite song from high school and the words and emotions come flooding back. And Mitchell says, for people with advanced dementia who’ve lost the ability to speak, many can still sing. She points to Jerry Tucker, who comes to this memory cafe with his wife, Deborah. When they arrive, he’s withdrawn and sits with his head down. But by the third song, Jerry’s head comes up. His gaze is more focused. He’s not only singing, he’s smiling, which makes his wife smile.

    DEBORAH TUCKER: Oh, yeah, he’ll – he can sing words of all these old songs, but not remember, you know – sometimes forget who I am. (Laughter) You know, it’s just these memory cafes, I love them.

    MITCHELL: Here’s the part you know.

    (SOUNDBITE OF GUITAR PLAYING)

    KECK: The music feels good, she tells me. And being in a place that feels safe and supportive for both her and her husband is huge. For NPR News, I’m Nina Keck in Chittenden, Vermont.

    MITCHELL AND UNIDENTIFIED PEOPLE: (Singing) Shadow from the starlight is softer than a lullaby. Rocky Mountain high in Colorado. Rocky Mountain high…

  • How the Supreme Court expanded Trump’s power

    How the Supreme Court expanded Trump’s power

  • They were world-class tennis rivals. Now friends, they’ve teamed up against cancer

    Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova were the most successful women’s tennis champions of their generation. Both were 18-time Grand Slam tournament winners — and each other’s greatest rivals.

    Evert, a Florida native, became a tennis star in her teens. Navratilova was born in communist Czechoslovakia, and emerged as a player after Evert was established. They first faced off during a match in Akron, Ohio, in 1973, when Evert was 18, and Navratilova was 16. Evert won, but Navratilova left an impression.

    “I remember thinking to myself, holy cow, when this young girl gets into better shape, she is going to be a force to be reckoned with,” Evert says. “She had so much talent. Her hands were quick, she had a big first serve, she had a big forehand, and she just was so powerful.”

    Two years later, on the day she lost a semifinals match to Evert at the U.S. Open, Navratilova defected to the U.S. In the years that followed, her tennis game improved. Though she and Evert had initially been friendly, the friendship cooled as their rivalry heated up.

    “Playing Chris was difficult because how can you not like Chris? What’s not to admire?” Navratilova says. “She was like the epitome of cool.”

    The new Netflix documentary Chris & Martina: The Final Set tells the story of how Evert and Navratilova re-established their friendship and how they both faced cancer in retirement. Evert was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2021; Navratilova was diagnosed with throat and breast cancer in 2022.

    “I can’t get away from her,” Evert jokes. “We had a 15-year career, and then we got cancer at the same time. It really is freaky, but I always say: If I want someone to be in the trenches with me, it’s Martina because she has been so supportive and so understanding.”

    Navratilova agrees: “We have such a level of trust that we know whatever we say to each other, it stays there. We give each other the best advice we know how to. And there is no ulterior motive, no playing games.”

    At the time that this interview was taped, Evert and Navratilova were both in remission from cancer. But late last week, Evert disclosed she’d recently been diagnosed with a recurrence of ovarian cancer.

    'We know whatever we say to each other, it stays there,' Martina Navratilova says of her friendship with Chris Evert.
    “We know whatever we say to each other, it stays there,” Martina Navratilova says of her friendship with Chris Evert. (Netflix)

    Interview highlights

    On supporting each other through cancer

    Evert: There are a lot of phone calls between us. … I don’t cook, but Martina would bake bread for me, and her wife Julia would cook, make some chicken soup. … I got a lot of food from Martina. She got a necklace from me.

    Navratilova: I get jewelry from Chris, she gets food from me.

    Evert: Martina’s and my relationship — because we’ve had one for 50 years — is not the type where we have to talk to each other every day to maintain the closeness. I always knew she was there. She always knew I was there if we needed to talk, and that was that.

    On the weakness they experienced with cancer

    Martina’s and my relationship — because we’ve had one for 50 years — is not the type where we have to talk to each other every day to maintain the closeness. I always knew she was there. She always knew I was there if we needed to talk, and that was that.

    Chris Evert

    Navratilova: Chris’ diagnosis and treatment was much more life-threatening than mine, percentage wise, but my treatment was more difficult physically. … I was in New York for seven weeks and I literally sat on a yoga mat, maybe half an hour of the seven weeks, and did some stretching. I couldn’t even do the down dog pose because I would have fallen down. I had absolutely zero strength left.

    Evert: The chemo kicked my butt, let’s put it that way. … It left me very weak, very, very weak. After chemo I would have three or four days of intense nausea and I just would feel tingling in my body and it just wasn’t nice. I didn’t have the energy. To walk six blocks was a big deal for me. And it was foreign. You know, it felt like it wasn’t my body, for sure.

    On watching the old footage of their matches together for the documentary

    Navratilova: For me, it was fun watching with Chris, because we had different reactions to what happened on the court. But what impressed me is how well we played with those wooden rackets. Because you know what? Those rackets are not easy to play with. But you try to put yourself in there physically, what it was like, mentally, what it is like. And it’s like, “Oh, I should have gone down the line,” or, “I can’t believe I missed that shot.” Or “Chris, you had such a great pass.” It was amazing. So it was impressive. … I wish I could still have that six-pack, but anyhow.

    Evert: I remember feeling genuinely happy for her. I remember it was her first Wimbledon. That’s always been her dream since she defected. Her family couldn’t be there to watch her. She was all alone. And I just was happy for it. And I knew that this was gonna be one of many for her to win.

    On defecting to the U.S. in 1975 when she was 18 years old

    Navratilova: I was thrilled to be in the States. I always loved American cars. And when you ordered a ham sandwich, you got, like, two inches of ham and two slices of bread. Whereas growing up, you had thick bread and one slice of ham. So I thought I was in heaven. And it was $2.30 for that sandwich. I still remember it. I couldn’t believe how much ham I was getting.

    Lauren Krenzel and Nico Gonzalez Wisler produced and edited this interview for broadcast. Bridget Bentz, Molly Seavy-Nesper and Beth Novey adapted it for the web.

    Transcript:

    TERRY GROSS, HOST:

    This is FRESH AIR. I’m Terry Gross. My guests, Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova, were the greatest female tennis players of their generation. They were friends, and they were each other’s greatest rivals in the ’70s and ’80s. When Evert retired in 1989, they’d each won 18 Grand Slam victories, and they’d each been the top-ranked female player in the world seven times. Navratilova retired in 2006. Now they’re the subject of a new Netflix documentary called “Chris & Martina: The Final Set.” It tells the story of how they interacted as friends and as opponents and how their friendship went cold for an extended period when their rivalry became more fierce. When they were each retired, their friendship deepened as they both faced cancer and were able to support each other.

    Evert was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2021. Navratilova was diagnosed with throat and breast cancer in 2022, the same year that Evert had a recurrence. When I spoke with them a couple of weeks ago, they were both in remission. But late last week, Evert disclosed she’d just been diagnosed with a recurrence of ovarian cancer. Here’s how the interview went a couple of weeks ago.

    Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova, what a pleasure to have you on FRESH AIR. And really, like, the documentary is so good, both in terms of your friendship, your rivalry, but also the excerpts of matches between the two of you that are just spectacular to watch. So congratulations on that.

    CHRIS EVERT: Thank you.

    MARTINA NAVRATILOVA: Thank you.

    GROSS: I mean, what are the odds you’d have cancer at the same time and be a short drive from each other in Florida? Really amazing.

    EVERT: Yeah. This is Chris (laughter). Freaky. I can’t even – I can’t get away from her. You know, everything happens with us. We had a 15-year career, and then we got cancer, you know, at the same time. And it really is freaky. But, you know, I always say, if I want someone to be in the trenches with me, it’s Martina, ’cause she has been so supportive and so understanding and so – such a calming, you know, voice to talk to.

    NAVRATILOVA: Yeah. We have such a level of trust that we know whatever we say to each other, it stays there. We know we give each other the best advice we know how to, and there is no ulterior motive or no – you know, no playing games. And that’s how we like it, because I think we both have had so many people say, oh, you’re great, this and that. They don’t – you know, they don’t give you the real story, but we’ve always been honest with each other on that front.

    GROSS: So you both have, or had, athletes’ bodies, and, you know, Martina, one of the things you were known for at some point in your career was basically, building your body, you know, just, like, intense, like, four-hour-a-day training to make your body stronger. And then, Chris, you ended up doing a very similar thing to keep up with Martina. And when you had cancer, you were really weak. I mean, it was hard to just walk. What was it like for you as athletes to live in a body that wasn’t functioning, that was very weak?

    NAVRATILOVA: Well, for me, I mean – so Chris’ diagnosis and treatment was much more life-threatening than mine, percentagewise. But my treatment was more difficult physically. I think – I was – I brought my yoga mat with me. I was in New York for seven weeks, and I literally sat on the yoga mat, maybe half an hour of the seven weeks and did some stretching. I couldn’t even do the down dog pose ’cause I would have fallen down. I had absolutely zero strength left. But the longest thing that took was the taste, which – I love to eat. So that was tough. But, you know, we’re athletes, so we want things to happen right away. It was almost a year before I had full taste buds coming back. But it all came back. But Chris was – well, you talk about…

    EVERT: Yeah.

    NAVRATILOVA: …What you went through.

    EVERT: Well, I think the chemo, you know, kicked my butt. Let’s put it that way. And, you know, when you think about – you know, I don’t want to use the word poisons, but the toxins, you know, it’s killing the good cells as well as the bad cells, and it left me very weak, very, very weak. After chemo, I would have three or four days of intense nausea, and I just would feel tingling in my body, and it just wasn’t nice. And, you know, I didn’t have the energy. I mean, to walk six blocks was a big deal for me. And it was foreign. You know, it felt like it was in my body, for sure.

    NAVRATILOVA: Yeah.

    GROSS: What were you able to do to support each other through the cancer and its treatment?

    EVERT: You know, there are a lot of phone calls between us, and Martina, who is the cook in the relationship…

    NAVRATILOVA: (Laughter).

    EVERT: I don’t cook, but Martina would bake bread for me, and her wife, Julia, would cook, make some chicken soup, so I…

    NAVRATILOVA: I made you pesto.

    EVERT: Got a lot of – pesto, yeah. I got a lot of food from Martina.

    NAVRATILOVA: (Laughter).

    EVERT: She got a necklace from me.

    NAVRATILOVA: Yeah. I get jewelry from Chris. She gets food from me.

    EVERT: But, you know, Martina’s and my relationship, because we’ve had one for 50 years, is not the type where we have to talk to each other every day to maintain the closeness. I always knew she was there. She always knew I was there if we needed to talk, and that was that.

    GROSS: Martina, you knew that something was wrong when you felt a lump in your throat. But…

    NAVRATILOVA: It was my lymph node.

    GROSS: Oh, it was your lymph node.

    NAVRATILOVA: Yeah. Yeah, yeah. The tumor was on my tongue, based on my tongue, but I did not feel that. I just felt a swollen lymph node, so if you can…

    GROSS: Right, and that’s what got you…

    NAVRATILOVA: (Inaudible) ask the question.

    GROSS: …To be tested.

    NAVRATILOVA: Yeah.

    GROSS: But, Chris, you weren’t symptomatic, but your sister…

    EVERT: No.

    GROSS: Jeanne, had died of ovarian cancer, and she had a genetic mutation, and you wanted to see if you had the same thing. Did I get that right?

    EVERT: Yeah. Yeah. I’ll tell you the story to that. My sister, Jeanne, was traveling with me to Singapore, and we were running to the gate. But I looked back, and Jeanne was huffing and puffing and not running. And I said, Jeanne, what’s the matter? She’s an athlete. And she said, I don’t know. I’ve just been out of breath the last few weeks, and I just don’t know. I think maybe I have a lung, you know, infection or something. And I said, well, did the doctor say that? And she goes, No, I haven’t been to a doctor.

    So I said, Jeanne, you know what? We’re going to Singapore for four days. And when we come back, you are going to the hospital right away and get this tested ’cause something’s not right. So she said, OK. So she went, and first, she got genetic testing. And believe it or not, she did not – everything turned out fine. She didn’t have the BRCA Jeanne, but she had a variant that was of uncertain significance, which means it hasn’t been tested enough. You know, there’s not enough case studies. And so they said, you know, she doesn’t have BRCA, so you don’t need to be tested. So nobody else in the family was tested.

    But unfortunately, Jeanne left it too long, and when she went in, it – she had Stage 4 ovarian cancer, and it spread everywhere in her body. And she ignored the symptoms because, like most women who are nurturers – they’re caring about their kids and their husband and their family – they forget about themselves. And that’s probably one of the messages I want to get out there. If you feel anything different at all, slightly, you know, go get it tested. So after my sister died, two years later, I get a call from the geneticist and they said, do you remember that variant that your sister had of uncertain significance? Well, that is – that has changed, and now that’s basically cancerous. And it’s BRCA. So maybe – we recommend that you and your family go get tested. Next day, I went, got tested. I had the BRCA gene in me, and that week, I got a hysterectomy, and they took it all out. But the results came back, and they said, unfortunately, you have a tumor in your ovaries, and you have tumors in your fallopian tube. And I was like, are you kidding me? And they said, but, you know, it’s Stage 1. You got lucky. You got it early. And by the way, I had had blood tests. I had had internal sonograms. I had, you know, everything that you can imagine, and nothing was detected as far as ovarian cancer. And I felt fine. I felt no symptoms. So that was my story. And it’s like, you know, so I had the BRCA gene, and I got – I had a hysterectomy, and then later on, I had a mastectomy because you have a 70% chance of getting breast cancer if you have the BRCA gene.

    GROSS: Did you freak out, Martina, when you were diagnosed?

    NAVRATILOVA: Yeah (laughter). Yes, I did. So I felt that my lymph node was swollen. So about two weeks later, it’s still there, swollen. So I called my doctor, and he says, we need to get a biopsy, and it was on a Tuesday. He says, by Thursday or Friday, we’ll know. So, Friday, I don’t hear anything. I call him. And he called back, like, 5 minutes later. He says, the lymph node is HPB, but the tumor could be anywhere. He literally said, it could be in your lungs or your kidneys or your liver. And I’m – oh, my God, you know, I could, like, not see next year. And so I totally freaked out over the weekend. This is Friday afternoon. And then I found out Monday, oncologist calls me, and he says, well, it’s HPB and it’s definitely just in your throat. It’s not anywhere else, and the cure rate is 95%. And I was so relieved. I had, like, the worst weekend of my life from what the original doctor said. And then the oncologist said, it’s going to be nasty. It’s not nice. We need to find out where the tumor is, but it’s somewhere in your throat. So good news, bad news.

    And then when – and then – so we scheduled a CT scan, and – so then they inject you to see where the tumor is, and they said, OK, so we found the tumor, it’s at the base of your tongue on the left side, size of about maybe 2 centimeters, almost an inch. I didn’t feel it. And also, your right breast lit up. So I know it’s cancer (laughter). Unrelated to that, so now – so then I have biopsy on the breast, and it’s completely different cancer, tumor, about a centimeter. Same thing. Nothing showed. I did not feel anything. The mammogram, the day of the surgery, still didn’t show the tumor. So even with the mammograms that we have – they are amazing – they still didn’t find it. Only ultrasound found it.

    So then I had to figure out, OK, what do we do now? You know, then you get into the solution. What’s the sequence of cure? Because I had two different cancers that went unrelated. I did the gene testing. I have nothing. I was just – this is my third cancer – second and third cancer that I’ve had unrelated to each other. So…

    GROSS: You had breast cancer in 2010.

    NAVRATILOVA: In 2010, yes.

    GROSS: Well, let me reintroduce you both.

    If you’re just joining us, my guests are Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova. They’re the subject of a new Netflix documentary called “Chris & Martina: The Final Set.” We’ll be right back. This is FRESH AIR.

    (SOUNDBITE OF RUDY ROYSTON’S “BED BOBBIN’”)

    GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. Let’s get back to my interview with tennis champions Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova. They were friends, they were rivals and they were the top players of their generation and two of the top female players ever. They’re the subject of a new Netflix documentary called “Chris & Martina: The Final Set.” It’s about their friendship, their rivalry and then years after they both retired, having cancer at the same time.

    In the documentary, we see you in the present, and you’ve – you’re still, like, recovering, but you’re done with the treatment. And you’re in – I’m not sure what room you’re in (laughter), whether it’s one of your living rooms or someplace else, but you’re watching playback – like video playback – of some of your matches together, you know, of – excerpts of some of your matches together. The playing is spectacular. And what was it like? What were you seeing, and what was going through your mind as you are at this point, like, close to 70 – I think that’s about how old you were – looking back at when you were in your prime and were rivals battling it out on the tennis court?

    NAVRATILOVA: For me, it was fun watching with Chris ’cause we were – had different reactions to what happened on the court. But what impressed me is how well we played with those wooden rackets because, you know what? Those rackets are not easy to play with. But you try to put yourself in there physically what it was like, mentally what it was like. And it’s like, oh, I should have gone down the line, or I can’t believe I’ll missed that shot, or Chris, you had such a great pass. It was amazing. So it was impressive. And the bodies, yeah, I’m like, I wish I could still have that six pack, but anyhow.

    (LAUGHTER)

    EVERT: Yeah. I think – I mean, I had to emotionally get myself back into that time, you know, that time of my life. You know, I think when I watched – you watched two different matches. One Martina one on the grass. And I noticed that I was winning quite handily. I had control of the match, and then I had a sitter, and I hit it down the middle, and Martina kind of ran into it because I didn’t mean to hit her in the head, even though some people may think I did. But Martina kind of was trying to cover that shot.

    NAVRATILOVA: Yeah.

    EVERT: So she ran, and I hit her in the head. And it was like a comic relief a little bit, you know, ’cause we were both so stressed out, comic relief. But unfortunately, for me, she came to life after that point. And then she just played, you know, great grass court tennis and beat me. And I remember feeling genuinely happy for her. I remember it was her first Wimbledon. That’s always been her dream since she defected. Her family couldn’t be there to watch her. She was all alone. And I just was happy for her. And I knew that this was going to be one of many for her to win. In my match, the French Open, I remember that that was in ’85, and that was the happiest I’ve ever been winning a major because I had had a 2 1/2 year drought against Martina and hadn’t beaten Everybody counted me out and never thought I’d win another major, and I did. And I went back to the gym and worked out and came into the net, had some new strategies to play. So we both kind of redefined ourselves and our games because the other one was No. 1 at the time, and we made each other better…

    NAVRATILOVA: Yeah.

    EVERT: …At the end of the day.

    GROSS: So I’d like you to each evaluate each other’s strengths and vulnerabilities from your point of view as the opponent.

    NAVRATILOVA: Well, for me, Chris was the epitome of mental toughness and poker face. She controlled her emotions on the outside 100%. You never knew if she was winning or losing. She was just so controlled, and I so wasn’t. So I always admired that and couldn’t believe that she could keep it together like that. And her concentration levels – she never gave anything away, as far as points. You had to earn it. So I knew every time before we played each other and whether winning or losing, I knew it was going to be a long, long physical match.

    EVERT: Nothing physical in my game was any good?

    NAVRATILOVA: Well, yeah, you never missed.

    EVERT: (Laughter).

    NAVRATILOVA: And you – she ran everything down. And then later, when she got older, she shortened the points and took the net away from me. But, yeah, it was emotional.

    EVERT: OK, I think with Martina, she was, like, an unbelievable athlete. So basically, her movement, her power from her shots – you know, she had a great forehand and a really tricky serve to return. Her backhand was her weaker side, and, you know, I tried to extend rallies and keep her at the baseline because I felt like, you know, she would – I could wear her down, and eventually, she’d miss. And she would get emotional sometimes in matches, and I felt like that was sort of a feather in my cap. But later on, at the end of her career, obviously, she really improved in that area.

    GROSS: You each started really young. Chris, you were 5. You were trained by your father, who was a tennis pro. And he used to come with, like, a cart of tennis balls and throw them your way so you can hit them back. Martina, you started training in Czechoslovakia at age 4. You started…

    NAVRATILOVA: Five. Five.

    GROSS: Oh, you were 5, too.

    NAVRATILOVA: Yep.

    GROSS: And it was your father or stepfather who trained you?

    NAVRATILOVA: My stepfather. Yeah.

    GROSS: And so you both…

    NAVRATILOVA: But he was my father.

    GROSS: You both trained hard. At the time when you were training, which obviously really paid off, did you want to go out and play with friends instead of constantly training? Did you think, at the time, I’m missing my childhood? Or did you think that in retrospect?

    EVERT: My mother used to pick me up from kindergarten, and I used to go to Kara Bennett’s house, my girlfriend down the street, and go swimming in her pool, which was a novelty, and have barbecues at night. And I really had a great afternoon. All of a sudden, my mom started picking me up at kindergarten and bringing me to Holiday Park so that my dad could throw tennis balls.

    GROSS: That’s where your dad was from.

    EVERT: My dad, who was my tennis pro and tennis coach, used to throw balls, and I would, you know, repeatedly – you know, hit the tennis ball. So he was teaching me how to play tennis. I remember a 5 years old feeling very resentful and very bitter and very upset. And – but there was nothing I could do about it because my dad was my dad, and he was the – you know, he was a disciplinarian, and he was the head of the family. So I had no say. But it wasn’t my choice to go over and play.

    But as time went by, interesting enough, more and more kids came to Holiday Park, and I met new girlfriends, and I played with the girls. I played tennis with the boys. And it really became a great little spot to have friendships and also to play tennis and to get better. So, I mean, that feeling went away quickly, and as soon as I started winning 10-and-under tournaments and 12-and-under tournaments, you know, I had the fever, and I knew that I really loved it, and I love to win.

    NAVRATILOVA: Yeah, for me, it was different in that I did not play every day at all growing up. First two years since I was 5, I was just on the – hitting against the wall. And when I was 7, when I could hit the – I was my using grandmother’s racket. So when I could finally hold the racket with one hand, ’cause I was just hitting 200 backhands against the wall. Then I got on the real court, and then when I was 9, I got a coach who taught my father how to teach tennis. And in the winter, we didn’t play at all from, like, October – this was on clay in Europe. And so, from October to April, I did not play tennis at all until I was maybe 10 years old. Then I would go once a week for an hour in the winter. That was it.

    And during the summer and in the winter, I was doing cross-training ’cause I was playing hockey. I was – you know, I was skiing, climbing trees. In the summer, I would swim in the river, ride my bicycle everywhere. But I didn’t really play tennis on a daily basis until I was, like, 15, 16 years old. So it was just completely different for me.

    GROSS: My guests are Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova. The new Netflix documentary about their friendship, their tennis rivalry and having cancer at the same time in the 2020s is called “Chris & Martina: The Final Set.” They were in remission when we recorded our interview a couple of weeks ago, but last week, Evert disclosed she’d just been diagnosed with a recurrence of ovarian cancer. We’ll hear more of the interview after a break. I’m Terry Gross, and this is FRESH AIR.

    (SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

    GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. I’m Terry Gross. Let’s get back to my interview with Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova, who were tennis champions in the ’70s and ’80s. They spent much of their careers as friends and as their greatest rivals. A new Netflix documentary called “Chris & Martina: The Final Set” is about the challenges of that dual relationship and about how they supported each other when they were each diagnosed with cancer at about the same time in the 2020s. When I recorded this interview with them a couple of weeks ago, they were in remission. But late last week, Evert revealed she had just been diagnosed with a recurrence of ovarian cancer.

    Chris, in 1970, when you were 15, you defeated the No. 1 ranked women’s professional player around the world, Margaret Court, and you became famous for being so good at age 15. How did that affect your sense of who you were and what your life would be like?

    NAVRATILOVA: Good question. I want to know.

    EVERT: (Laughter) You know, fame at a young age and success is not a good recipe for emotional and mental development and growth. It really isn’t, because I did beat Margaret Court and then all of a sudden, I was getting a lot of attention, and people were coming up and patting me on the back and telling me how great I was, and people were allowing me to get away with things, and it went to my parents allowing me to get away with things as well. You know, I just think before you develop a personality and you develop principles and boundaries, you know, when you’re a kid and everyone’s telling you that you’re the greatest ever, I just think that it just is very, very confusing and very detrimental to, you know, your health.

    And in those days, we didn’t have psychiatrists and therapists, and, you know, we didn’t have the resources that today’s game has. You know, Martina and I had to do this all ourselves, figure it out all by ourselves. And my parents weren’t that much of a help because they had never been in my position. So it was like – it was very strange, and I think it affected me, you know, later on in my life when it came to relationships.

    GROSS: Well, Chris, you had to go to school, I think, the day after the Margaret Court match.

    EVERT: I did. I did.

    GROSS: What a clash of worlds that must be.

    (LAUGHTER)

    EVERT: Yeah, I mean, I did. And, you know, I was – people – the kids were looking at me different. Like, I was very – honestly, I was very shy, and I wasn’t outgoing, and I wasn’t confident in myself. I was a bit insecure. I wasn’t the popular girl. And people were looking at me and kids were looking at me. You know, so I felt like an outsider, actually. And then, you know, as years went by and I started playing tournaments, and the press dubbed me – you know, they labeled me, gave me an image – Little Miss Ice Maiden, you know, Cinderella in Sneakers, Little Miss Icicle. And because I was very cool and calm on the court and composed, they thought I was cold, and how could this be a schoolgirl being this cold? And so they gave me an image. And honestly, when you’re young, you start living within your image. It’s just easier.

    GROSS: Martina, when you played your first match in the U.S., I think it was the first time you’d been to the U.S. from Czechoslovakia, and travel was so restricted after the Russians invaded. What was that first tournament like for you? Like, you weren’t really speaking the language. You were basically alone. I think Chris had already, like, you know, befriended you and was helping kind of acclimate you. But tell me what that first match was like. And was that against Chris?

    NAVRATILOVA: No, no, no, no. So the first tournament I had to play qualifying to get into the draw. It was 16 draw. Chris ended up winning it, of course. But I won my first round match. I got qualified, and I won the first round match, and then I lost in the quarters. But I was thrilled to be in the States. I always loved American cars. And when you ordered a ham sandwich, you got, you know, like 2 inches of ham and two slices of bread, whereas growing up, you had thick bread and one slice of ham. So I thought I was in heaven. And it was $2.50 for that sandwich. I still remember it. I couldn’t believe how much ham I was getting. So I fell in love with American culture because it was so – there were oranges on the streets. I could pick an orange.

    GROSS: Is this Florida or California?

    NAVRATILOVA: Florida. This is Fort Lauderdale. So I’m picking up an orange, you know, as I’m driving down the road. And in Czechoslovakia, we only had oranges once a year. For Christmas, we would get bananas and oranges. It was a treat. Normally, you just get apples and pears and maybe peaches. So it was, like, you know, “Alice In Wonderland” for me, coming to the States.

    GROSS: Chris, you befriended Martina. You helped her, you know, culturally. But also, did you help her with her game? And did you think, she’s going to become my fiercest rival soon?

    EVERT: No, I did not help her with her game.

    NAVRATILOVA: She wasn’t going to do that even if she could.

    EVERT: What the heck. Yeah. I was not a coach. I was a player trying to protect my No. 1 ranking.

    NAVRATILOVA: And you were 18.

    EVERT: But I saw a very talented young Czechoslovakian player, and I played her in Akron, Ohio. And you were 16 then?

    NAVRATILOVA: Yeah, 16.

    EVERT: Sixteen and I was 18.

    NAVRATILOVA: (Inaudible) on the tour, yeah.

    EVERT: Which is in the same month that I met her. And I won 7-6, 6-3. But I remember thinking to myself, holy cow. When this young girl, you know, gets into better shape, she is going to be a force to be reckoned with and very dangerous because she had so much talent. Her hands were quick. You know, she had a big first serve. She had a big forehand. And she just was so powerful.

    GROSS: So you maintained your friendship until that kind of went cold. And the way the story is told in the documentary is that, Martina, you had become close to Nancy Lieberman, who, I think it’s fair to say was, like, the most famous basketball…

    NAVRATILOVA: Yeah, she was at the time.

    GROSS: …Female backetball player…

    NAVRATILOVA: Yes.

    GROSS: …Of her era. And I think you became romantically involved, too, but she told you that you had to, like, train harder, eat better and, you know, trim down. And she had you training, like, for hours a day. And your body transformed.

    EVERT: Unbelievably.

    GROSS: But she also told you that it was time to stop being friends with Chris because it’s hard for an opponent to be a friend. You have to just, like, not think about her feelings or anything and just see her as your rival. And I want to know from each of you how that felt. How – let’s start with you, Martina. How did it feel like, I can’t be friends with Chris anymore?

    NAVRATILOVA: Well this happened – so Nancy and I met in April, and then Nancy came with me to the French Open, Eastbourne, Wimbledon, and I lost in the semis in all those tournaments. And after Wimbledon, she says, what are you doing? What do you mean? I mean, you could be in so much better shape, and you’re too nice to Chris. I’m like, what are you talking about? Oh, you need to be tough, and you need to start training harder. And you need to hate your opponents, and you need to hate Chris. I’m like, oh, OK. And I was very, you know, naive. And again, I didn’t have the skills to say, no, that’s – I don’t have to hate her. I just need to want to beat her. I was almost too friendly. But the getting in shape thing was news to me. I thought I was in good shape. Then she took me on the basketball court, had me run some suicide drills. And that’s when I realized, OK, I’m not in as good a shape as I thought.

    So that summer, I started training hard. Then during the US Open, Renee Richards started helping me, became my coach after the US Open. And that’s when everything kind of changed for me, the fitness and then the coaching. Because for six years after I defected, I didn’t have a coach. My father was my coach. But we could talk maybe once a month. So he couldn’t coach me and I was on my own. And that’s when Renee started helping me. That’s when everything changed for me.

    GROSS: And, Chris, what was it like for you after Martina, following the advice of Nancy Lieberman, distanced herself from you?

    EVERT: Hurtful. It was very hurtful. And I don’t think that was really Martina. I think she was just, you know, following Nancy’s orders. And Martina, you know, was really sort of afraid to speak up to her at the same time. But in saying that, Nancy Lieberman did a heck of a lot for Martina Navratilova when it came to her tennis and her fitness.

    NAVRATILOVA: Yeah, 100%.

    EVERT: Because it was a 180-degree turn from the athlete that she was then until after she had worked out with Nancy. And she was just – she became unbeatable, and then for the next 2 1/2 years, you know, lost six matches. So she did her a lot of good, let’s put it that way, but not in a nice way.

    GROSS: You lost six matches?

    NAVRATILOVA: Well, I had a stretch where I lost six matches in three years. That’s how amazingly I played then. I mean, when I look at the numbers now, I’m like, wow.

    GROSS: Dominant.

    NAVRATILOVA: But when you’re doing it, you don’t think about it. But, yeah, that was a pretty good stretch.

    GROSS: My guests are tennis champions Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova. They spent most of their careers as friends and rivals and are now the subject of a new Netflix documentary called “Chris & Martina: The Final Set.” We’ll be right back after a short break. This is FRESH AIR.

    (SOUNDBITE OF MICHELLE LORDI SONG, “WAYWARD WIND”)

    GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. Let’s get back to my interview with tennis champions who spent most of their careers as friends and rivals, Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova. They’re the subject of a new Netflix documentary called “Chris & Martina: The Final Set.” Chris Evert had been ranked the No. 1 female player for seven years. But in 1978, Navratilova defeated Evert in her first Grand Slam singles title at Wimbledon and supplanted Evert as the top-ranked female player. Navratilova went on to hold that position for almost seven years.

    Chris, what did it do to your identity? Because your identity was built, ever since you were like 15, on, like, being amazing, being unbeatable, being No. 1. And when you stopped being No. 1, when you were losing to Martina, who you had known before she was nearly that good, what did it do to your sense of self?

    EVERT: You know, I mean, whether it’s ego or pride or whatever it is, I wasn’t happy about it. I hadn’t played anybody like that before. Nobody had come along with that versatility and the strength, the power that Martina had. And it was tough to swallow, to tell you the truth. But after a while, I kind of came to terms with it and realized, she’s just too good. And you can continue to work hard, go in the gym like she does and train like she does and, you know, just try to become a better athlete and change your game a little bit.

    GROSS: That’s what you did. You started training and…

    EVERT: Yeah. Yeah. Changed my strategy, yeah.

    GROSS: Yeah. You took a break for a while from tennis.

    EVERT: I think I was the first one to take – it was a mental break at that time, because the way I described it was like I’d wake up in the morning, and I didn’t want to get out of bed. And the thought of competing, you know, made me – I just didn’t – I didn’t have the burning desire. I didn’t have the killer instinct.

    GROSS: Were you burned out? And were you also discouraged because you weren’t winning as much?

    EVERT: No. No, no, no, no. I was burned out. I mean, you know that – they call that the seven-year itch in marriage. Well, there’s, to me, there’s a seven-year itch as being an athlete. And I just was mentally drained. And I needed – I wanted just to live life like a normal 24-year-old.

    NAVRATILOVA: Yeah, it was ’78. I played 21 tournaments, and Chris played 10 tournaments.

    GROSS: Martina, did you go through that seven-year period?

    NAVRATILOVA: I was burned out at the end of ’86, and I did not know it either. It should’ve been red flags flying everywhere because I asked my then coach Mike Estep, how few tournaments can I play and still stay No. 1? (Laughter) Hello.

    GROSS: (Laughter).

    NAVRATILOVA: But I didn’t know to take a break. I did not take any vacations. And I played for three years burned out, and I still kept trying, and the results weren’t there. Then Steffi Graf comes along and starts beating both of us. And so I ended up talking to Billie Jean. I said, Billie, I don’t know what’s going on. This is not ’89 in the spring. I said, I don’t know what’s going on. You know, I’m trying hard, but the results aren’t there and this and that.

    So she advised me to take a week off, just do nothing except what I want to do and see if I still feel, like, the love of the game that I had when I was a little girl hitting against the wall. So I did that. I took a week off, did nothing. And I’m like, yeah, I still want to play. I love the game, and I still feel I can get better or improve in some ways, and I want to play. And so – and I played six more years after that. So all it took was one week of self-reflection. But I didn’t know to take the break.

    GROSS: I wonder if this contributed to feeling burned out. You talk about – in the documentary, you talk about how Chris was, like, considered, like, the girl next door. Everybody loved her in the stands. But for you, people saw you like, well, she’s the communist and she’s a bully, and then at some point after you were outed, and she’s a lesbian.

    NAVRATILOVA: Yeah.

    GROSS: And you would get some boos. You wouldn’t get as many cheers as…

    NAVRATILOVA: Yeah.

    GROSS: …As Chris did. That sounds a little demoralizing. Did that contribute to your feeling of burnout, do you think?

    NAVRATILOVA: I’m sure that didn’t help because I always felt like I was the visiting team. No matter where I played, you know, they were cheering for the other guy to win or for me to lose. Either way, you take it personally, and it was tricky. And playing Chris was difficult because how can you not like Chris? What was not to admire? You know, she was, like, the epitome of cool, and I was not.

    But then coming from a communist country, coming from a Slavic country, then, of course, being gay didn’t help either so – and then, you know, I had visible muscles and, you know, I was physically stronger, imposing and all of this. And unapologetic – I never apologized for who I was. And, you know, as a woman, you’re supposed to be more demure, and I certainly never was that. So it was just a whole bunch of stuff. And when you really think back, I was still kind of alone because I was not getting the help emotionally or mentally that I could have used back then. And the pressure never goes away, really.

    GROSS: And then there was also the pressure of not being able to come out because it wasn’t done. You know, you…

    NAVRATILOVA: No, no, no, no, I couldn’t come out because it would have been a disqualifying – could be disqualifying for getting my citizenship. So I couldn’t come out until after I got my…

    GROSS: Oh, I didn’t realize that.

    NAVRATILOVA: …Citizenship in ’81. Yes, it was on there. It’s up to the final officer, which were I think always men who did the final interview to approve you for citizenship. They can ask you whatever they want. And if they ask you, are you gay – and you can’t lie, right? Because then that could be a disqualifier. You have to tell the truth. You’re under oath. And if you say, yes, and if that officer deems that a disqualifying answer, then you will not get your citizenship, and you’re done. And so I couldn’t come out for that reason. And then once I got my citizenship, I didn’t want to come out because it would have hurt the tour. So it was always something. I was never ashamed of who I was, but I was kind of in the closet because of these circumstances.

    GROSS: That’s a lot to keep in when you’re in the public. eye.

    NAVRATILOVA: Yup, it is. It is, yeah.

    GROSS: Especially when you’re being booed, you know what I mean?

    (LAUGHTER)

    GROSS: You were just up against so much and had so much you had to keep inside yourself. So…

    EVERT: Yeah.

    GROSS: You were outed in the New York Daily News.

    NAVRATILOVA: Yup.

    GROSS: Do you know how that happened?

    NAVRATILOVA: Yeah. So I got my citizenship. I think it was July 20. I go next – two days later, I got my passport. The next day, I fly to France to play in an exhibition in Monaco. And that reporter who had been asking me, are you gay or are there any lesbians? I can’t talk about it until I get my citizenship. I get my citizenship. He calls me. He finds me. And are you ready to talk now? I said, no, because I gave him the reason about the women’s tennis tour because Billie Jean King was outed about her lesbian relationship, and she was trying to save herself and – you know, from losing all the sponsors, sponsorship. She lost them anyway.

    And then the people in charge of WTA said, you know, we cannot have another scandal. Because they knew I wanted to come out once I got my citizenship. So you can’t come out because the sponsors said they will leave the women’s tour if there is another scandal. So I explained this to him. I said, I can’t come out because. And then I said, you’re not going to print this story, right? And he said, not if you don’t want me to. I said, well, of course I didn’t want you to. Bam, the next day or two days later, it’s in the Daily News. Martina comes out as bisexual. So there we are.

    GROSS: If you’re just joining us, my guests are tennis champions Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova. They’re the subject of a new Netflix documentary called “Chris & Martina: The Final Set.” We’ll be right back after a short break. This is FRESH AIR.

    (SOUNDBITE OF GILAD HEKSELMAN TRIO’S “DO RE MI FA SOL”)

    GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. and if you’re just joining us, my guests are tennis champions who spent most of their careers as friends and rivals – Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova. They’re the subject of a new Netflix documentary called “Chris & Martina: The Final Set.” It’s about their friendship, their rivalry And then, years after they both retired, having cancer at the same time.

    So I want to ask you briefly about retirement. Chris, you retired in 1989. How old were you?

    EVERT: Thirty-four years old.

    GROSS: Yeah. How did you know it was time, and how did it affect your identity when you were no longer the tennis star? I mean, you were still a celebrity, but you weren’t playing anymore.

    EVERT: The reason I retired was because the mental side of the game was my strength, and the focus and the determination and the hunger to win was my strength. I used it in my advantage. And I didn’t have it anymore. I just wanted to relax. I didn’t want to have pressure, and I wanted to start a family. So the nice thing was I had something to go to, and I think that made it, you know, not only bearable, but attractive to me to retire.

    So after I retired, I was married to a great guy, Andy Mill, and we had a great life. And a couple years later, we started a family. And I remember every morning waking up after retirement felt like a vacation because I had the freedom to do whatever I darn wanted to do. ‘Cause since I was 6 years old, I had a plan, and I had a routine, and I was on the court every day. So that was that.

    GROSS: And you had three children in five years. You could not have done…

    EVERT: Yes.

    GROSS: …That if you were playing.

    EVERT: No. I really threw myself into motherhood and nurturing. And it was so nice not to think about myself. It was so nice to care for somebody else besides myself. It was just the time for me to start to be a little unselfish and not be selfish.

    GROSS: Martina, you played for, like, nine – eight or nine years after that, right?

    NAVRATILOVA: I retired in ’94, then I didn’t play for five years, and then I played doubles for six years because I really enjoyed it. But yeah, ’94 was my last year. And so I played my last match in the garden in New York in November. It was a Tuesday, and my parents were with me. And on Friday, my mom said I look 10 years younger because all that stress was finally gone.

    GROSS: So I think it’s fair to say that you both contributed a lot to the state of women’s tennis, the popularity of women’s tennis because the rivalry between the two of you, these two amazing tennis players playing against each other, that really attracted a lot of crowds. And it was a thing, like, your friendship and your rivalry together, it was a thing. It was a story in the press. People wanted to see it. And I’d like you each to talk a little bit about how you saw the state of women’s tennis changing and what you think you contributed to that.

    EVERT: Well, for me, I could sense that tennis was becoming more global. After the Billie Jean King generation – Billie Jean, we have to give full credit to her and the original nine for really working hard to create a tour and provide – that provide a good living for women tennis players and, you know, equal prize money. And she was the pioneer. But we were the next generation, and they needed us, also, to carry the torch. So when Martina and I came along, I think our rivalry brought it to another level – a whole new level because Martina and I brought our own set of fans…

    NAVRATILOVA: Right.

    EVERT: …To the plate. And Martina – we were so different. She came from a communist country. I came from America. I was a baseliner. She was a serve and volleyer (ph). She was emotional. I was cool and calm. So we both had our own set of fans, and I think we brought more eyeballs to the TV, and we brought more bodies into stadiums. And that, you know, it enhanced the game of women’s tennis.

    GROSS: What about younger players now? Do you watch a lot of tennis, and do you think that they’re bringing something new to the table and helping to expand women’s tennis?

    NAVRATILOVA: Yeah. So both Chris and I do commentary for – of – for different channels. So we work at all the majors. So we’re still, you know, have the finger on the pulse of the game. And yeah, because of TV, tennis has become much more international. And then when you have a player from that country, then they – that excels, then they – you know, they bring it to the new generation in their country and expand the map again. When Li Na won the Australian Open – or the French Open was the first major she won, first Chinese player or first player from Asia to win a major, oh, my God, tennis exploded in China, and now you have a lot more players playing as Chinese players because of Li Na paving the way for them. So every time you get a player from a different country, it kind of expands the map in that way.

    EVERT: And when the Williams sisters came along, we have now more women of color…

    NAVRATILOVA: Yeah.

    EVERT: …Playing, and they were a great influence to women all over the world. I think the players nowadays have more of a social conscience, also. So they’re good – they’re very outspoken about what’s going on in the world, and they’re really good at, you know, bringing these issues to their platform and talking about whether it’s the mental health or whatever. You know…

    NAVRATILOVA: Naomi Osaka…

    EVERT: Naomi Osaka.

    NAVRATILOVA: …Iga Swiatek, Coco Gauff.

    EVERT: Exactly.

    NAVRATILOVA: Very switched on.

    EVERT: Inclusion, you know, all this. They tackle these subjects with class. And so I think that they’re very bright that way. And, you know, I think it’s in a good state right now.

    GROSS: Thank you both so much…

    NAVRATILOVA: OK.

    GROSS: …For being on our show, and thank you for participating in that documentary ’cause it’s really good.

    NAVRATILOVA: Thank you.

    GROSS: Thank you.

    EVERT: Thank you, Terry.

    GROSS: Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova are the subjects of the new Netflix documentary “Chris & Martina: The Final Set.” We recorded our interview a couple of weeks ago. Late last week, Evert disclosed she’d been diagnosed with a recurrence of ovarian cancer. We send her our best wishes.

    Tomorrow on FRESH AIR, we’ll talk about the conflicts between politics and the arts. Our guest will be Isaac Butler, author of the new book, “The Perfect Moment: God, Sex, Art, And The Birth Of America’s Culture Wars.” Butler said the conflict had a transformative effect on him because at the same time the culture wars hurdled toward their climax, art saved his life. I hope you’ll join us.

    To keep up with what’s on the show and get highlights of our interviews, follow us on Instagram – @nprfreshair.

    (SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

    GROSS: FRESH AIR’s executive producer is Sam Briger. Our technical director and engineer is Audrey Bentham. Our engineer today is Adam Staniszewski. Our interviews and reviews are produced and edited by Phyllis Myers, Ann Marie Baldonado, Lauren Krenzel, Therese Madden, Monique Nazareth, Thea Chaloner, Susan Nyakundi, Anna Bauman and Nico Gonzalez-Wisler. Our digital media producer is Molly Seavy-Nesper. Roberta Shorrock directs the show. Our co-host is Tonya Mosley. I’m Terry Gross.

    (SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)