Given a document, generate a short title of the document. The title should convey the main idea/event/topic about which the document is being written. Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].

Example Input: The public schools in gentrifying neighborhoods seem on the cusp of becoming truly diverse  as historically underserved neighborhoods fill up with younger  whiter families. But the schools remain stubbornly segregated. Nikole Hannah-Jones has chronicled this phenomenon around the country  and seen it firsthand in her neighborhood in Brooklyn. âWhite communities want neighborhood schools if their neighborhood school is white â she says. âIf their neighborhood school is black  they want choice.â Charter schools and magnet schools spring up in place of neighborhood schools  where white students can be in the majority. âWe have a system where white people control the outcomes  and the outcome that most white Americans want is segregation â she says. In a recent episode of The Atlantic Interview  Nikole Hannah-Jones and The Atlanticâs editor in chief  Jeffrey Goldberg  discuss how integrated schools are good for white children and black children.
âIf one were to believe that having people who are different from you makes you smarter  that you engage in a higher level of thinking  that you solve problems better  there are higher-level ways that integration is good for white folks â Jones says. For black children  the benefits of attending an integrated school are much more drastic. âItâs literally  will you receive a quality education or not? Will you be a full citizen in the country of your birth?â In a hyper-competitive economy where test scores and college admissions and lifetimes earnings are all linked  Hannah-Jones has seen that the soft benefits of integration  like empathy or compassion  are low on a familyâs priority list. âMost white people are willing to trade that â she has found. An edited transcript of their conversation is below.  Jeffrey Goldberg : You and I have both had these conversations with my colleague Ta-Nehisi Coates about the arc of history and which way it bends. Iâve adopted the viewpoint of Barack Obama  that history is an arrow and the moral arc of the universe is long but it bends toward justice. And Ta-Nehisi says that there really is no moral arc  but if there were it would just bend toward chaos. Are you in the camp of people who say that long-term optimism is premature?
Nikole Hannah-Jones: I think it has not a lot of basis in historical fact. I would say the arc is actually a circle. It just perpetually turns back on itself.  Goldberg : But letâs use African-Americans as an example. Life has gotten better  no? Before there was before there was Brown v. Board of Education  there was no Brown v. Board of Education. Before there was a Civil Rights Act  there was no Civil Rights Act. We donât live in a period of history free of lynchings  but the number of lynchings has gone down. There are more African-Americans in the middle class since Reconstruction. Life in America for African-Americans has gotten better. Itâs been stutter stepped  but we ainât in 1866 or 1873. Hannah-Jones: I am not a slave. That's true.  Goldberg : Well â¦ All right. Hannah-Jones: If thatâs the bar.  Goldberg : No  no  no. Hannah-Jones: None of us would argue that there hasnât been progress in a range of things. I guess I get almost offended by people who want us to pause and be congratulatory about forward progress.  Goldberg : I just want it known for the record that I'm offending you already. And we havenât even started. Hannah-Jones: I mean  in a country that has set itself apart as a beacon of democracy  the fact that weâre applauding that black folks now have had  for 40 years  full citizenship rights in the country of their birth  in the country of their grandparentsâ birth  in the country their great grandparentsâ birthâit's just hard to feel a lot of optimism.
 Goldberg : Iâm not arguing for applauding. Obviously there is a long road to go. Iâm just saying that there is a direction to things. Hannah-Jones: Well  thereâs forward progress and then we move back. Weâre clearly right now moving back. So yes  we get the Voting Rights Act and now we get the gutting of the Voting Rights Act. We see a wave of voter suppression. We get Brown v. Board of Education and now black children are more segregated than theyâve been since the 1970s. We never made any real progress on housing segregation outside of the South and the West even though we outlawed housing discrimination in 1968. The wealth gap for black and white Americans is the largest that itâs been since we started really recording this in the 1970s. There are more black men incarcerated than were black men enslaved during slavery. There are more black men killed by police than there were black men lynched in a year.  Goldberg : Okay fine. You win. Hannah-Jones: For small numbers of us  thereâs a lot of progress. And for large numbers of us  I think the progress can be very hard. Itâs still really bad.  Goldberg : Iâm not disagreeing with your analysis on any of those. It just seemed two years ago that we were moving in the right direction. Hannah-Jones: And then what happened?  Goldberg : Well  a reaction. I want you to analyze the root of these continuing dilemmas. Is at the bottom what weâre talking about a lack of understanding on the part of white America about the actual lived lives of African-Americans? I mean  Germany grappled with what it did in a way that Americaâs never grappled with what it did. As Ta-Nehisiâwho can always out-pessimism meâonce said  Germanyâs easy because Germany killed all the people it hated.
Hannah-Jones: I would say weâre not grappling what this country is about. Period. Not for African Americans.  Goldberg : Youâre not one of these people who says  âThis is not who we are.â Hannah-Jones: No  this is clearly who we are. I write about race from the year 1619. The English landed at Jamestown is 1607. Twelve years later  we have imported Africans to be enslaved and determined that they will be a wholly different caste of people with no legal rights in this country. Thatâs one hundred and forty years before we declare independence and decide that we want to be a country. This is embedded in the DNA of this country. I mean  Ta-Nehisiâs claim to fame is âThe Case For Reparations â which says weâve never even repaired the damage that weâve done and we only grudgingly even give legal rightsâon paperâto this group of people.  Goldberg : It is amazing that we are talking about Robert E. Lee and voter suppression as issues in 2017. Hannah-Jones: I mean tell me another country where a group of people break off from a country  try to fight that country  and lose  and those people are glorified and defended by the highest office in the land.  Goldberg : So the South won in one key cognitive wayâin a narrative way? Hannah-Jones: Yes  of course. What we were fighting in the South was a national sin. We want to pretend it was a Southern sin  but it was a national sin. We canât grapple with the South unless we grapple with ourselves.
 Goldberg : Two issues preoccupy you: housing segregation and education segregation. Theyâre linked  obviously. To get to a place where thereâs actual equality in housing and actual equality in educational opportunities for African-Americans  what has to happen? Itâs not just a legislative process. Hannah-Jones: It is not. Though  equal rights for black Americans has always had to be legislated. Itâs never been willingly given. What it would take  if weâre honest  is a fundamental restructuring of society. Our public schools are not broken  but are operating as designed. Our public schools were set up to provide unequal  inadequate education for black children. So thatâs what they do.  Goldberg : But arenât the public schools just a downstream problem of housing segregation policies? Hannah-Jones: No. They are clearly linked  but whether you have integrated communities or segregated communities  we have school segregation. In communities that are gentrifying  the gentrification stops at the schoolhouse door. White communities want neighborhood schools if their neighborhood school is white. If their neighborhood school is black  they want choice. Housing segregation just becomes a convenient excuse. The problemâand I never use the phrase âwhite supremacyâ because itâs a word that people automatically discount as soon as you use it  but that is the problem. We have a system where white people control the outcomes. And the outcome that most white Americans want is segregation. And I donât mean the type of segregation that we saw in 1955. I don't mean complete segregation. I don't think there are very many white Americans who want entirely white schools. What they do want is a limited number of black kids in their schools.
 Goldberg : What do you call âcurated diversity.â Hannah-Jones: I never talk about school inequality in terms of âdiversityâ because I think itâs a useless word. I think itâs a word that white people love. When I say âcurated diversity â it means white parents like a type of diversity so theyâll still be the majority and there wonât be too many black kids. White Americans  in general  are willing to accept about the ratio of black Americans at large: 10 to 15 percent.  Goldberg : But you get into the 20s... Hannah-Jones: When you get into the 20s  white folks start to exaggerate how large the percentage is. So in New York City  one of the most segregated school systems in the country  if youâre a white parent in the public schools  you donât want all-white schools.  Goldberg : Because youâre a liberal? Hannah-Jones: Yeah. But what you want is a majority-white school with a small number of black kids and a good number of Latino  a good number of Asian. That makes you feel very good about yourself because you feel like your child is getting this beautiful integrated experience. The problem is that the public schools in New York City are 70 percent black and Latino. So  for you to have your beautiful diversity  that means that most black and Latino kids get absolutely none. The tolerance for increasing particularly the percentage of black kids is very low  and even lower if those black kids are poor. No white parents in New York City mind having my kid in their school because they feel like Iâm on their level. But if you get too many of kids like mine who are black but poor  thereâs very little tolerance.
 Goldberg : Do most white parents in New York City achieve curated diversity for their children? Hannah-Jones: Yes.  Goldberg : Theyâre winning that? Hannah-Jones: Oh  definitely.  Goldberg : And itâs the black and Latino kids who are not winning because thereâs not enough whites in that sense to go around? Hannah-Jones: There would be. I hear this all the time: âYou canât integrate schools in York City because thereâs not enough white kids.â But that's only based on the premise that you canât expect white kids to be in the minority. The demographics of the New York City public schools are about 40 percent Latino  almost 30 percent black  15 percent Asian  15 percent white. If you picture a classroom like that  that's a beautiful school. Thatâs a beautifully diverse  integrated school. You could have that if you chose. We just donât choose it  because we automatically say  âYou canât expect that a white parent will put their kid in school with all those black kids.â  Goldberg : If you were the dictator of America  would you outlaw private schools? Would you force all the white kids  and all the upper-middle class and upper-class African-American kids  into the public-school system? Youâd have a deep level of parental involvement  right? Are private schools immoral in this context? Hannah-Jones: Interestingly  right after Brown there was consideration of whether or not Brown had to apply to private schools  or whether we should get rid of private schools in the United States altogether  understanding that the way to subvert Brown is to simply withdraw from public schools. Which is what happened all across the Southârather than share a public good with black folks  state legislatures decided to shut down public schools altogether and pay vouchers for white students to go to private segregation academies. We think it sounds absolutely crazy to consider ending private schools  but that was a consideration.
The answer to your question is yes  you would have to. If you truly wanted to equalize and integrate schools  you would have to. But you can go a step shorter than that. New York City public schools are majority black and Latino. But you can go to any of the suburbs around  and theyâre very heavily white. So in New York and all across the North  you could simply move into an all-white community and go to all-white public schools. And thatâs how you avoided desegregation. In the South  most school districts were countywide. So you either paid for private school or you dealt with desegregation. In the North  you didnât have to do that. The key difference between the North and the South is for the vast majority of the history of this country  90 percent of all black people lived in the South. The South responds with Jim Crow  by passing laws that restrict the movement of black people. The North doesnât have to do that. It has a very tiny black population. Itâs only once black people start migrating out of the South in the 1900s that the North shows its true ugly racist head.  Goldberg : Youâve described something that I actually experienced as a kid in the 70s. I was in a school system growing up that was about 60 percent black  35 whiteâthe local system right outside New York City. Very unusual. My experience going from kindergarten through 12th grade in that situation was fairly tension-free. People actually got along. There was mixing  there was interracial datingâ¦
Hannah-Jones: Your first crush was a black girl?  Goldberg : No  weâre not even going there. Hannah-Jones: OK.  Goldberg : But  yes. And the second and the third. Hannah-Jones: Why are you turning red right now?  Goldberg : Because Iâm interviewing you and youâre not interviewing me. But yes. My high-school sweetheart for many years was an African-American woman whoâs a very delightful person. It was an atmosphere where that could happen without consequence. Granted  a lot of the people from the white parts of town went to Catholic parochial schools. If the school district actually took in all of the kids who lived within the boundaries  it probably would have been 30 percent black. For the whites who went  it was a fairly beneficial experience. I can look back on that and say it was better for my intellectual  moral  civic developmentâmy emotional developmentâto do that. That  you argue  is disappearing slowly as an experience for whites and blacks. The country is resegregating. Talk a little bit about the benefits for whites of integration. Hannah-Jones: I think this is where you struggle trying to convince white people they should do this. Thereâs a clear imbalance for black kids. Itâs literally  will you receive a quality education or not? That is what integration means for black kids. Will you be able to transcend poverty? Will you be a full citizen in the country of your birth?  Goldberg : Hitching a ride to the white majorityâ¦
Hannah-Jones: Hitching a ride to the white majority  with the understanding that in a country built on racial caste  they get an inordinate amount of the resources. Things that are acceptable for black children are never acceptable for white children. So if you want what white children get  you have to be where white children are. White kids donât need black kids in the same way. Segregation does benefit white families. That is why the whole institution of segregation comes about.  Goldberg : How does it benefit white families  though  in a practical way? Hannah-Jones: In a practical way  because you get to hoard resources. You get the best of everything. Even in a community where the schools pretty much suck  if thereâs a school with black kids  itâs going to suck worse.  Goldberg : I would disagree with the whole premise. Hannah-Jones: Would you?  Goldberg : Well  going to the second half. The benefits of integration for whites I think outweigh whatever resource hoarding you could do. Hannah-Jones: Itâs soft benefits versus hard benefits. The soft benefits of integration  which I think are also very importantâitâs just a much harder argument. White people understand that theyâre fighting to get into white schools for a reason. It is a benefit. Theyâre going to get the best teachers. Theyâre going to get the best instruction. Theyâre going to get the best curriculum.  Goldberg : With the assumption that itâs a zero-sum game.
Hannah-Jones: With the assumption that there are good teachers and bad teachers.  Goldberg : And that the bad teachers are going to be... Hannah-Jones: ...overwhelmingly put into our schools. Yes. Nothing about the American experiment tells us that we value black kids the same. We just donât. I wrote about school resegregation in Tuscaloosa for The Atlantic. They created an all-black high school and an integrated high school. They promised the all-black high school it would have the same courses  and they just donât do it. There was actually no reason not to do it. The white parents who wanted the integrated school didnât give a damn what courses you offered in the black school. They werenât fighting against giving those kids physics. They just didnât care. In the end  they were poor black kids and they didnât have that much value and no one thought they were going to go to college anyway. Now  if one were to believeâwhich I believeâthat having people who are different from you makes you smarter  that you engage in a higher level of thinkingâand thereâs been research that shows thatâthat you solve problems better  there are all these higher-level ways that integration is good for white folks.  Goldberg : The richness of the human experience. Hannah-Jones: Right. My daughter is in a high-poverty school. Weâre clearly not poor. I think it makes her a better human being. I think she gets to see that these kids arenât any less than her. They just have less than her. But those are all hard soft-arguments to make to people who fundamentally view education as  how my kid will rise to the top above every other kid and get into Harvard. They donât actually give a damn about their kid being a better person.
 Goldberg : You talk about âhardâ benefits and âsoftâ benefits. I don't think they are that soft. Hannah-Jones: Most white people are willing to trade that. There is an explicit racial fear that black kids are more dangerous  that if they put their kids in these schools  their kids are going to be exposed to violence  theyâre going to be exposed to bad culture. Thereâs no longer the belief that black people are racially inferior but that black culture is inferior.  Goldberg : They donât say it in such a blunt way  do they? Hannah-Jones: They said it in a blunt way. In my daughterâs school  when white parents who lived next door to my daughterâs school would come and tour  they would tell the principal  âWe'll bring our kids  but only if our kids are in classroom by themselves and you keep them together through fifth grade.â  Goldberg : You mean  a white class. Hannah-Jones: Yes. This is what is being demanded.  Goldberg : And this is in âprogressiveâ Brooklyn. Hannah-Jones: This is Brooklyn. Hipster Brooklyn. There is this intrinsic racial fear that cannot be mitigated by facts. Thatâs the thing that is really embedded in all of usâthe belief that black children are not as smart. There are exceptional black children  right? âOf course  I know little Johnny is smart  but heâs not like the rest of the black kids that are culturally depraved. That bad culture is going to rub off. We need to protect our kids from large numbers of these kids.â I've had parents tell me  âThe middle-class black parents at the school are fine.â
 Goldberg : Whatâs so interesting here is that you're not talking about stereotypical Trump voters in Alabama. You're talking about hipster Brooklyn. Liberals kind of piss you off? Hannah-Jones: I am only writing and speaking to liberals at this point. I'm trying to get people who say they believe in equality and integration but act in ways that maintain inequality and segregation to live their own values. The most segregated parts of the country are all in the progressive North. If you could just get white liberals to live their values  you could have a significant amount of integration.  Goldberg : You know what group of people who would be really uncomfortable listening to  you  talk? The heads of progressive private schools in New York City  Boston  Washington. Hannah-Jones: But hereâs the thing. Weâre in a capitalist country and if you can pay for something  then so be it. What Iâm dealing with are public schools which are publicly funded for the public good. Every child should walk into a public school and get the same education. Those are the parents that Iâm speaking to. What we are finding are parents who say they believe in a common good but they want a public school that operates like a private schoolâyou can screen out the kids you donât want  you can hoard resources in the school  you can hoard all the best teachers  you can determine what curriculum youâre going to get. And if that means that two miles down the road  another publicly-funded school doesnât get any of that  then so be it. That  to me  is the height of hypocrisy.
Example Output: The Atlantic Interview: Nikole Hannah

Example Input: … How vitiated Bill Clinton seemed at the last Democratic convention. Some of his appetites  at least  had waned….With a pencil neck and a sagging jacket he clambered gamely onto the stage after Hillary’s acceptance speech and played happily with the red balloons that fell from the ceiling. When the couple repeatedly reminded the crowd of their new status as grandparents it was to suggest very different associations in voters’ minds. …Yet let us not forget the sex crimes of which the younger  stronger Bill Clinton was very credibly accused in the 1990s.  Juanita Broaddrick  reported that when  she  was a volunteer on one of  his  gubernatorial campaigns   she  had arranged to meet  him  in a hotel coffee shop. At the last minute   he  had changed the location to  her  room in the hotel  where  she  says  he  very violently raped  her .  She  said  she  fought against Clinton throughout a rape that left  her  bloodied. At a different Arkansas hotel   he  caught sight of a minor state employee named Paula Jones  and  Jones says   he  sent a couple of state troopers to invite  her  to  his  suite  where  he  exposed  his  penis to  her  and told  her  to kiss it. Kathleen Willey said that she met  him  in the Oval Office for personal and professional advice and that  he  groped  her   rubbed  his  erect penis on  her   and pushed  her  hand to  his  crotch. It was a pattern of behavior; it included an alleged violent assault; the women involved had far more credible evidence than many of the most notorious accusations that have come to light in the past five weeks. But Clinton was not left to the swift and pitiless justice that today’s accused men have experienced. Rather  he was rescued by a surprising force: machine feminism. The movement had by then ossified into a partisan operation and it was willing—eager—to let this friend of the sisterhood enjoy a little droit de seigneur.
A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that  Juanita Broaddrick  never received a fair hearing for  her  charge of rape against the then-Attorney General of Arkansas William Jefferson Clinton  later President of the United States.
condemns the actions which  Ms. Broaddrick  alleges occurred in Little Rock  Arkansas in 1978 by then-State of Arkansas Attorney General William Jefferson Clinton as unacceptable and outrageous  to be condemned by all people of all races  creeds  and religions; pledges to do everything in its power  including holding public hearings  to probe the underlying causes of this brutal alleged rape by William Jefferson Clinton and an alleged threat to silence the victim by Hillary Rodham Clinton to make sure that the United States does not return to the days when such brutality and violence against women  along with threats to silence them  were deemed acceptable; calls on the Federal Bureau of Investigation  the Department of Justice  the White House  and all other Federal law enforcement agencies to conduct an immediate  full  and fair investigation into all of the facts of the case; calls upon each Senator and every citizen of the United States  in his or her own way  through his or her church  synagogue  mosque  workplace  or social organization  to join in denouncing and getting others to denounce this outrageous alleged rape of a defenseless woman and pledges to join in efforts to bring an end to rape and an end to the fear and hatred which underlie it  and to encourage all Americans to dedicate themselves to ending sexual violence in the United States.
Senators Mitch McConnell  John McCain  Susan Collins  and others like Ted Cruz and Mike Lee have condemned Judge Moore in the strongest terms and have called for his withdrawal from the Senate race. There should be no problem with these Senators and those who agree with them on the House side introducing identical resolutions that promise the American people and  Ms. Broaddrick  that they will at last take a serious look at  her  charges and act to educate the American people that both the Senate and the House will not stand for this kind of behavior as alleged by  Ms. Broaddrick . Or others who accused the Clintons like Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey.
Will this launch a demand from Democrats to do the same to President Trump? Doubtless — and having seen the allegations the American people elected him anyway. Nothing new has emerged since the President took office. The  Broaddrick  allegation on the other hand did not emerge until 1999  and  Broaddrick herself  says that NBC News withheld its explosive  graphic interview with  her  until it was too late to affect the Clinton impeachment trial. Bill Clinton would never be on a ballot with this spectacular charge in the public domain.
Will they do it? Will Moore opponent Doug Jones pledge to support such a resolution investigating the Clintons and the  Broaddrick  rape accusation if elected to the Senate?
But if all of a sudden so many Senators and Congressmen and Congresswomen are racing to microphones to say they are outraged? Then they need to do something about  Juanita Broaddrick  and what happened with the Clintons. To hold one hearing after another about Hollywood’s sex problem. To name names and hold people accountable.
The addition of Ted Cruz and Mike Lee to this fight bodes well for  Juanita Broaddrick  — and finally and at last holding Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton responsible for their deeds. As even some notable liberals like the Atlantic and MSNBC’s Chris Hayes are finally doing.
The real question now? There is no excuse for this kind of behavior. Period. So where are the McCains and Flakes and other GOP insiders in and out of the Senate and the House in holding to account not just Roy Moore but their friends and fellow Establishment insiders? Will they bring about the Clinton reckoning as the Atlantic asks? Will they finally turn their Senate spotlight on the infamous Ted Kennedy/Chris Dodd “waitress sandwich” and the behavior of their own colleagues? Will these Senators put their time and actions in the Senate where they now say they really stand? Will they finally give  Juanita Broaddrick   her  due?
Example Output: Will the House and Senate Condemn Bill and Hillary Clinton?

Example Input: Johnny Weir and Tara Lipinski during the start of the women’s singles competition. (Maddie Meyer/Getty Images)
To many viewers  NBC figure skating analysts Tara Lipinski and  Johnny Weir  are Olympic darlings — a one-stop shop for knowledge  sass and brass. Others  however  reach for their ear plugs  calling the duo mean  obnoxious and distracting. This debate resurfaces every time Lipinski and  Weir  appear on television.
“They’re just awful ” one commenter wrote after a Washington Post interview with Lipinski and  Weir . Another added  “They chatter incessantly like a couple of squirrels.”
Whether you appreciate Lipinski’s and  Weir ’s “truth” — and their newfangled approach — it appears they’re here for the long haul. Aside from anchoring the final figure skating competition Thursday night (the women’s free skate)  and the exhibition gala over the weekend  NBC announced that Lipinski   Weir  and Gannon will also host coverage of the PyeongChang Closing Ceremonies this weekend. The reaction to this news? Predictably  it was both joy and agony.
Example Output:
NBC figure skating announcers Tara Lipinski and Johnny Weir remain polarizing