A number of the opinion articles recently published on The Hilltop Monitor have been inflammatory amongst our readership. Individuals have commented on the articles both on the website and on the Monitor’s social media, questioning the factual accuracy of the pieces, asserting that the opinions should not have been published and questioning the judgment of the editors who oversaw the process.

As the chief editors of this publication we find it necessary to respond to these statements and iterate both the importance of free media and the distinction between opinions and facts.

Within the United States, the freedom of the press is an inalienable right protected by the First Amendment. This mandate proclaims that no law shall be made prohibiting the free exercise of the press and enshrines journalism as an integral force for change in the nation.

The value of journalism has been proven again and again in American society and the impacts of news-reporting can be seen in our everyday life – despite the reality that journalists are often forgotten or belittled in the process.

Consider the example of Edward Snowden, a well-known whistle-blower who leaked information from the U.S. government to reveal that the NSA collects data on millions of U.S. citizens. Six years after the fact, Snowden is still living in Moscow, exiled from the U.S. and guaranteed to face espionage charges should he ever return.

The name Snowden will go down in history, the man immortalized as a figure of rebellion against an unlawful system. And yet, the actions of Snowden would’ve been nothing without the aid of Glenn Greenwald, an American attorney and journalist who risked everything to trust an anonymous source in late 2012 – leading to him eventually breaking the story on the U.S. government’s illegal surveillance practices.

Few of us would recognize Greenwald’s name, and that is because journalism is, in essence, a behind-the-scenes profession involving great risks for few rewards. The position of the journalist is such that every time they publish an article they are submitting themselves to the mercy of their readership; should their statements be proven to be false the journalist’s reputation is destroyed, if their claims are true they receive little glory and are allowed simply to continue the work they have started.

The reality is that journalists put themselves on the line to challenge authority, question assumptions and clarify the obscure. These actions require bravery and are often met with resistance from the powerful elite – those whose narrative has been challenged.

On the campus of William Jewell College such challenges have been made by the writers of the Monitor, including: a summary of incidences indicating a need for increased transparency, an examination of the limitations of Jewell’s curriculum and even a direct call to action about the College’s enrollment numbers.

These challenges comment on the norms set by the College within which we all operate. To address these requires courage on the part of the writer who is uniquely positioned as both an employee of Jewell – as the institution both funds and, technically, publishes the Monitor – and as a student who is reliant on scholarships from the College, housing in the dorms and a myriad of other services.

And yet, our writers persist.

As a college newspaper one of the Monitor’s main functions is to amplify student voices. As such, we value opinion articles as highly as news pieces and make every effort to present thought-provoking commentary to the community. We even have a section on our website dedicated to opinion articles, each of which are clearly titled “Opinion: ___” to distinguish them from other pieces.

As the College’s official publication of record, The Monitor is the medium through which students can broadcast their opinions to the entire campus community. All students are given this opportunity, whether they choose to accept it or not – Monitor staff members can choose to write an opinion article as their weekly assignment, and readers can submit letters to the editor which will be reviewed for publication by emailing monitor@william.jewell.edu at any time.

These authors can utilize this platform to express their own personal views or present controversial ideas to confront the community and spark conversation. And, when we transitioned into our roles as chief editors, one of our primary goals was to ensure that diverse opinions were represented on the Monitor, advocating a variety of viewpoints and topics to be explored.

We strive to promote the breadth, profundity and diversity of opinions on the Monitor, but this does not mean we facilitate the reckless and standardless publication of any opinion that crosses our desks. We do not publish any material – opinion or otherwise – that contains clear factual inaccuracies, instances of libel or slander or material that violates the College’s honor code.

While we may make suggestions and recommendations to opinion writers about how to strengthen content or ways to address likely counterarguments, we have no interest in fundamentally changing any opinion that falls within the legal and institutional standards.

The Monitor’s presence on campus is not – and certainly should not be – tied to an ideological, moral or political agenda. The sole purpose of opinion writing is to challenge practices, ideas or people and to transgress (sometimes popularly held) beliefs and viewpoints with the goal of informing readers with an unfamiliar perspective.

The Monitor is not an advocacy organization. We will not filter out opinions that could be assumed as morally questionable, regardless of our personal stances on the matter.  

Furthermore, as “The Critical Thinking College ®,” this campus would be remiss to allow or encourage the newspaper to censor opinions. An opinion piece may be written by an individual, but the conceptual purpose of making it publicly accessible is to spark public discussion – to promote lively, involved debate about the contents involved, with the goal of seasoning the perspective of every engaged party. It would be an absolute disservice to the community – and a failure of representation – if we filtered every single article we published through one defined lens of presumed ideological correctness.

What we must recognize – as members of this critically thinking community – is that when faced with an opinion we despise one has several choices. The truth of the matter is that, unlike with facts, we are able to dissent and ignore opinions relatively inconsequently. However, it is crucial to understand that honest opinion articles provide one with a window into the mindset and perspective of the author, read in collection they offer insight into a culture and allow one to pass judgments on a community.

This knowledge empowers the reader and elevates one to a position from which they can empathetically create change. Understanding the mindset of the person with whom one disagrees is an invaluable tool, it teaches one exactly how to win a debate, change a mind or – over time – even change a culture.

Alternatively, one could react to an unwanted opinion with hatred and spite, going after the article’s author and editors rather than the ideas presented. Unfortunately, this is the course of action that many within our readership have taken in recent weeks.

Choosing to act in this manner does nothing but further social divisions and minimize the potential for constructive dialogue and change to occur within the community.

As editors of the Monitor we have made a commitment to challenge both the policies and structures of the institution, and the assumptions and biases held by students. This means that sometimes we publish articles that are unpopular among our viewers. Yet, a piece’s popularity does not dictate an article’s merit nor warrant condemnation for its author.

Hence, our support for our writers and commitment to the principle of free media – including the publication of controversial opinions and challenges to authority – is unwavering. Public criticism and disdain should not be recognized as an authority on a journalist’s integrity, and these judgments are not the means by which we, as editors, set the standards of this publication.

Recently, The Hilltop Monitor published a controversial opinion article criticizing the current Student Senate. The article was written by a bystander of the Senate, not a current Senator, and was based on information made public through the organization’s website and social media, as well as observations from the April 2, 2019 meeting.

As a publication striving to maintain high standards of both accuracy and fairness, the Monitor ensured the Cabinet in office was able to respond to the published piece. This article includes both the initial allegations made against the Senate as well as their responses to those claims.

It should be known that the current Cabinet was made aware of the critical opinion article prior to its publication and a meeting was facilitated by the Monitor between the author of the article and the members of the Cabinet.

The purpose of good journalism is to hold up a mirror to the community it serves, creating space for self-reflection and critical insight. These mirrors can take the form of opinions or facts, and sometimes they are hard to look at. Through The Hilltop Monitor we seek to hold up a mirror to the William Jewell College community, allowing for reflection on both the good and the bad. Hence, facilitating an opportunity for the current Senate Cabinet to respond to the original opinion piece was essential.

In an effort to facilitate dialogue, Co-Editor in Chief of The Hilltop Monitor Christina Kirk sat down with Student Body President Jakob Miller, Vice President Sarah Lewis, Treasurer Hannah Keeney and the author of the original opinion piece. Secretary Alex Thiessen was unable to attend the meeting as he was committed to playing in a Jewell sponsored soccer game.

From the outset, the Cabinet was adamant that they did not perceive the expressed opinion to be credible. Speaking on behalf of the four leaders, Miller explained that they did not agree that the information the author relied on was sufficient to support such a critical view of the Senate.

“I believe wholeheartedly, and my Cabinet does as well, that the opinion is not credible,” said Miller. “Though I do agree, and members on the Cabinet do agree with some of the criticisms made, we just don’t think it was a credible opinion. For reasons, as you say in your article, you came to one meeting and from that you’ve observed what happened there and you decided to write about what you saw and then generalize[d] Senate in the process throughout your article.”

To the critique that students cannot be expected to be completely informed on Senate activities due to the Cabinet not posting minutes on the website in a timely manner, Keeney made clear that the representatives work hard to balance the workload of Senate on top of other school related responsibilities while acknowledging that – as is the case for all of us – sometimes they miss items on their to-do-lists.

“The lack of minutes on the website can largely be explained by an absence of our Secretary, but that was due to school sponsored events,” Keeney said. “I do agree that the minutes need to be revamped, but to claim that the Senators argue personal agendas based on the minutes alone I don’t believe is fair. […] I think it would’ve helped if you reached out to one of us, or even a Senator, rather than relying on minutes and what you saw at one meeting alone.”

In response to the article’s claim that due to the fact that Senate has not publicized its achievements, it seems Senate has enacted no tangible change on campus, Miller read out a list of Senate’s accomplishments from the past year.

The list included, but was not limited to: Coffee With The Prez events, Lighting of the Cardinal Tree, Diversity and Inclusion events, tweaking the Student Rights and Responsibilities and providing solutions to last year’s controversy surrounding the Journey Grant program.

Further, Miller emphasized that, while it is Student Senate’s duty to change campus for the better, it is not necessarily their job to publicize their achievements. He pointed to The Hilltop Monitor as the entity responsible for communicating Student Senate’s work to the student body.

“This is kind of an echo chamber in here, and we are all spouting our ideas and talking about things, and then we just forget about what’s out there. And that’s where I think the Hilltop has an opportunity to come in here and communicate that gap,” Miller said. “I mean we’re already doing so much work to make change happen, it’s another step then to try and project that to students. And so, I think, to solve this problem that you’re talking about is just a better partnership between Senate and The Hilltop Monitor.”

“I think it is easy to fall into complacency, so I think having Hilltop publish more articles about Senate would be great,” Keeney added.

The opinion article also critiqued the demographic makeup of the current Senate. While the current Cabinet acknowledged that certain campus affiliations are over-represented, they explained that each student is given the opportunity to run for the Senator positions and the elected Cabinet does not dictate the outcome of those campaigns.

This means that the diversity of Senators is in the hands of the student body. If students only vote for students from one organization – for example: one fraternity or sorority, or one campus political group – then those will be the students making up the Senate.

In an effort to facilitate a more representative Senate, the current Cabinet explained several ideas they have brainstormed related to changing the campaign rules.

“One of the ideas that came up to us was electing senators based on [their] housing arrangements,” said Miller. “So we would elect Senators from their constituencies, their housing arrangements, so you would have a couple of Senators from Semple, one Senator from Jones… Kind of like a house representative thing. [sic]”

While expressing their desires to move forward and implement new initiatives, the current Cabinet also expressed frustration that even when they have communicated with the student body – such as about events and openings on the Senate – it has been difficult to get interaction.

“We can always do better to communicate, but if we can’t get student engagement then that communication is just irrelevant to me at that point,” said Miller.

Each of the cabinet representatives remarked on the format of the article, wondering why the author elected to write an opinion based on just public information – publicized minutes and attendance of one meeting – rather than an investigative news article with more extensive research and interviews.

“There should be some quotational evidence here. You should be asking senators what they think. You should be asking independents what they think. Because this is larger than just one person’s opinion. This is about what the student body thinks of Senate – not just one student,” Miller said.

Lewis mentioned that she was also put off by the tone in which the article was written.

“When we’re such a small campus we need to work as a team in order to have positive growth, and criticism needs to come in a constructive way, and I don’t think that was how it was approached,” she said.

Lewis specifically took issue with the opening sentence of the article.

“Honestly, with the initial sentence of ‘Student Senate is embarrassing,’ I think your purpose wasn’t in a positive light. I honestly think it was an attempt to kind of humiliate us – mostly us on the cabinet,” Lewis said. “We’re clearly not flawless, and we’re aware of that.”

The author explained their desire was not to humiliate the current Senate but to spark discussion and debate in an effort to reduce apathy on campus.

In response, Keeney pointed out a contradiction she noticed.

“If your goal was to decrease apathy, if I’m reading this article as an unaffiliated-with-Senate student, why would I ever want to be involved with an organization that’s being accused of being embarrassing? I’m having a hard time connecting the two. I think it completely annihilates our cabinet – and unfairly so. I think it’s completely wrong to say that people wouldn’t be interested in reading an article if it wasn’t inflammatory or, frankly, rude,” said Keeney.

The Treasurer defended the current Senate and iterated that, at the end of the day, we’re all just trying to do our best.

“All four of us – and I can honestly speak for the [senators] who consistently show up to Senate – they all want to make Jewell better,” said Keeney. “To be accused of being, basically, a mockery… that’s not gonna decrease apathy. [sic].”

To conclude the meeting, Miller read off a prepared statement:

I would like to end by expressing my gratitude again for giving Student Senate the opportunity to respond to this article. There is much censorship around the criticisms and ideas students address about the College. While we, the Student Senate, may not agree with all that’s been said in the article I do appreciate the discussion that we are having now that came as an outcome of it. At some time in our lives, we were all freshmen at Jewell and we all took Responsible Self learning the significance of discussion. I believe this article has made very fair criticisms and has given Senate the opportunity to be transparent. With censorship, this article and the productive dialogue that arose from it would not occur. I can only hope this particular instance is well broadcasted enough to set an example for the rest of the College and community.

After coming out on top at the annual Missouri College Media Association (MCMA) awards ceremony, Hilltop Monitor Editors-in-Chief Sofia Arthurs-Schoppe and Christina Kirk were beaming despite the dismal weather.

The two chief editors attended the conference along with Social Media Manager Cassie Hayes, Lifestyle Page Editor Madison Carroll and Faculty Advisor Dr. Lori Wetmore in Springfield, MO, April 13.

The Monitor was granted 25 awards at the prestigious event, including the prize for the best small college newspaper in the state of Missouri.

Event divisions were established based on the number of students enrolled in the institute at the time of the ceremony. Up against the Monitor in division three was Evangel University, Southwest Baptist University, Park University, Harris-Stowe State University, Avila University, Fontbonne University, Hannibal-Lagrange University, Stephens College, Culver-Stockton College and Missouri Valley College.

Awards were granted by the state-branch of the College Media Association, the official organization recognizing collegiate newspapers nationwide. These awards are considered to be some of the most esteemed awards available for college publications, and this year, the Monitor stole the show.

Of the 29 total categories, The Hilltop Monitor submitted entries for 16 and won awards for at least one entry in every one of those. In total, the Monitor won 25 awards.

Each award was assigned a numerical points value – four for first place, three for second, two for third and one for honorable mention – and the sum total of the points won across every other category determined the publication which won the division’s Sweepstakes award, representative of Best Overall. The Monitor received this award for division three.

A list of the awards received by the Monitor can be found below:

Sweepstakes (Best Overall)

The Hilltop Monitor Staff, First Place

Website Design

Sofia Arthurs-Schoppe & Christina Kirk, First Place

Editorial Writing

Sofia Arthurs-Schoppe & Christina Kirk, First Place: “Letter from the Editor: New Pronoun Policy”

Catherine Dema, Second Place: “Opinion: The government should keep its hands off my godd*mn internet”

Audrey Mapes, Honorable Mention: “Opinion: Yes, It Matters–Kindness in the Dark”

Column

Savannah Hawley, First Place: “To Be Honest…with Savannah Hawley”

In-Depth News Reporting

Sofia Arthurs-Schoppe, First Place: “Prospects bleak as housing crisis in KC mirrors national epidemic”

Christina Kirk, Second Place: “Troostapalooza addresses Kansas City’s internal economic and racial divisions”

Feature Writing

Hannah Koehler, Third Place: “Kansas City’s first biennial art festival brings awareness to social and cultural history by promoting local artists”

Catherine Dema, Honorable Mention: “New data science major draws students to Jewell and addresses industry need”

Sofia Arthurs-Schoppe, Honorable Mention: “Fresh Ideas brings fresher beans through rekindled relationship with The Roasterie”

Sports Writing

Abby Christensen, Second Place: “Jewell Cross Country teams ready for new season with [another] new coach”

Investigative Reporting

Elliott Yoakum, First Place: “An in-depth study on diversity within Jewell’s curriculum”

Sofia Arthurs-Schoppe, Second Place: “Prisoners protest treatment and conditions in IWOC’s National Prison Strike”

Savannah Hawley & Hannah Koehler, Third Place: “College officials address miscommunication about the Journey Grant program”

Entertainment Review

Harper Vincent, First Place: “Movie Review: “Beautiful Boy””

Tavarus Pennington, Honorable Mention: “Album Review: “DiCaprio 2””

News Writing

Sofia Arthurs-Schoppe, Second Place: “Operation: Ceasefire KC raises awareness of violent crime and homicide through attempted murder-free weekend”

Non-Political/Entertainment Cartoon

Kitt Wilhelm, First Place: “Kitt’s Toons #3”

Story Illustration

Audrey Mapes, First Place: “Women in History: Nancy Wake”

Audrey Mapes, Second Place: “Women in History: Anna Julia Cooper”

Information Graphic

Sofia Arthurs-Schoppe, First Place: “Prospects bleak as housing crisis in KC mirrors national epidemic”

Feature Photography

Mykala Crews, First Place: “Artist Feature: Terrace Wyatt”

Sports Photography

Sofia Arthurs-Schoppe, Second Place: “Photo Feature: Homecoming Game”

News Photography

Cassie Hayes, Second Place: “Kansas City embraces hispanic culture and heritage at Fiesta Hispana”

The Hilltop Monitor hosted the 2019 Student Senate Cabinet Debate. The event, held at 7 p.m. in room 221/222 of the Yates-Gill College Union, was relatively well-attended, with approximately 50 students spectating in-person and around 100 viewing via Facebook livestream.

As of April 11, only two cabinets have submitted petitions and had them approved by the current Student Senate’s election committee. The deadline to submit a petition ends April 12.

Cabinet “Will to Better the Hill” is headed by presidential candidate and junior political science, business administration and Applied Critical Thought and Inquiry (ACT-In) major Sarah Lewis, with sophomore elementary education major Carman Stephenson for vice president, first-year communication major Tavarus Pennington for treasurer and first-year chemistry major John Haug for secretary.

The second cabinet, “Serve, Challenge, Belong” is headed by presidential candidate and junior psychological science major Hannah Keeney, with first-year business administration major Mario Magana Jr. for vice president, first-year political science and history major Hunter O’Connor for treasurer and junior biology and ACT-In major Micah Williams for secretary.

Notably absent from the debate from the “Will to Better the Hill” cabinet was presidential candidate Sarah Lewis, who was unable attend due to changes in the schedule of William Jewell College’s softball team but viewed the debate through the livestream. All other members of each cabinet were in attendance.

The two hour event commenced with a set of 13 questions prepared by The Hilltop Monitor editors-in-chief Sofia Arthurs-Schoppe and Christina Kirk. The questions covered general topics such as each cabinet’s priority list and what sets them apart from the other cabinet as well as more topical questions, like each cabinet’s position on offering free condoms in dorms on campus.

“Our primary thing we’re running on is renovating student spaces [sic],” said Pennington from the “Will to Better the Hill” cabinet. “The next thing that we’re focused on is the flier policy.”

This cabinet stressed their commitment to setting small goals in the hopes that they would be more achievable than the aspirations of the opposing cabinet. These small goals include the advertised endeavor of adding meal-replacement smoothies to the coffee shop menus.

The competing cabinet declared much larger goals.

“One of our first priorities is trying to renovate our housing for the upperclassmen, because if we’re going to be required to live on campus for four years we feel like that housing should be up to date for us [sic],” said Williams about her cabinet’s priorities. “We also want to work on diversity and inclusion, but not just in a groupthink manner, moreso in a recruitment manner.”

These remarks about the priorities of each cabinet established a theme of each cabinet’s prospective approach to changemaking on campus: “Will to Better the Hill” is playing it safe by aiming small, while “Serve, Challenge, Belong” is looking to impress with lofty goals and propositions for radical change.

What the cabinets did have in common was an expressed commitment to creating change on Jewell’s campus.

In response to the question, “First-years, after less than one year on Jewell’s campus, what leads you to believe that you are the best choice to lead the student body?” the first-years on both cabinets expressed that they believed the opportunity of being on the Senate cabinet would empower them to become change-agents.

Shortly after, the athletes were asked how they would manage the extra time commitment of being on the Senate cabinet, particularly during their season. The “Will to Better the Hill” cabinet, which is comprised of three non-athletes and one athlete, was placed in an unusual situation as their nominee president Lewis – the only athlete on the cabinet – was absent from the debate due to a softball game.

Stephenson, the nominee vice president of the cabinet, stepped in and answered the question by explaining that there are various ways to demonstrate commitment to the responsibility of leading the Senate.

“[When Lewis] found out late last night at like 10 o’clock that she was leaving at 8 a.m. today, she totally went into overdrive mode,” said Stephenson. “I have a five page speech that Sarah wrote that she wanted me to share with you guys because she wanted her voice to be heard.”

Contrastingly, the “Serve, Challenge, Belong” cabinet is comprised of three student athletes and one non-athlete. All athletes on this cabinet were present at the debate and insisted that they were ready to fully commit to the Student Senate and would even go straight from practice to meetings, if that became necessary.

The second hour of the debate was devoted to audience questions, which were asked both in person and via comments on the livestream.

One question from the Facebook livestream was popular among audience members, who snapped and applauded as it was read aloud. In light of the previously referenced condom discussion, a student asked if the cabinets would work to also provide free feminine hygiene products on campus. Both cabinets responded positively, saying if they were in support of free condoms, they should be in support of free feminine hygiene products as well.

The event was not without its controversy. Some audience questions led to moments of direct confrontation. One audience member announced that one of the questions posed to the cabinets was from “Will to Better the Hill” vice presidential candidate Stephenson’s mother, implying that the question had been planted as if to tip the scale in that cabinet’s favor. This was met with laughs and scoffs from other members of the audience, as can be heard in the archived livestream of the event.

The question from Stephenson’s mother regarded Jewell’s marketing outreach and asked candidates for any ideas they had about recruiting new students. This is a project that Stephenson has been tangentially involved in during her time at Jewell.

“I think that she brought it up because she knows… it’s important to me and something that I think should be important to this campus. So, yes, that’s my mom. I love her, she’s great – she supports me, and I appreciate that,” Stephenson said in response to the accusation.

At another moment, “Will to Better the Hill” candidate for treasurer Tavarus Pennington started his response to a question posed by the moderators with a harsh generalization.

“Coming to William Jewell obviously wasn’t my first option. I’m sure it wasn’t many of yours,” Pennington said.

A few audience members appeared a bit put off by the assumption, and Pennington, seemingly in response to audience reaction, emphasized his passion for the Jewell community despite his initial doubts about attending the school.

Another audience member took issue with the flier policy worked on by this year’s Senate cabinet, a policy which would allow students to hang posters without approval from Student Life.

The audience member expressed concern about the possibility that the policy could make it easier for posters and fliers containing harmful or offensive material to be disseminated among the student body. Both cabinets defended the policy, saying offensive posters will still be reported and arguing that people who want to post offensive posters wouldn’t have gone through Student Life anyway.

Back and forth between the audience member and the cabinets ensued, until the moderators intervened and Magana of the “Serve, Challenge, Belong” cabinet resolved to personally discuss the issue further with the audience member at the conclusion of the debate.

Later in the evening, both cabinets were stumped by a question from a current senator, who asked about both cabinets’ opinions on the changes to the student rights and responsibilities completed by Senate in the past year.

While the “Will to Better the Hill” cabinet cited the absence of their only representative who had served on Senate the past year – presidential candidate Sarah Lewis – as the reason they were uninformed about the changes, Hannah Keeney, “Serve, Challenge, Belong” presidential candidate and current treasurer of the 2018-2019 Student Senate cabinet, had a difficult time making any clear statement on the changes.

“I’m sorry I can’t inform you more directly… I know, I know what you’re talking about, I do,” Keeney said. “Um, but, word for word, you caught me off guard.”

The event concluded with a direct question from an audience member to the candidates on both cabinets asking about the changes they have already implemented as students. The listener seemed concerned that due to the limited time the first-year candidates have spent on campus, they do not have extensive track-records of being changemakers at Jewell.

To the dismay of the audience, the first-year candidates seemed to miss the point of the question and none seized the opportunity to cite their leadership achievements to date, on campus or even prior to their enrollment. Instead, each candidate exposed the lackluster impressions they have had on Jewell to date.

“In my very limited time here I haven’t been able to, uh, actually … produce tangible change,” said O’Connor from the “Serve, Challenge, Belong” cabinet.

“I’m agreeing with Hunter,” said Magana. “I’m very new to the campus so, you know, real, tangible change is something that I can’t attest to right now, but I can attest to in the future.”

Similar statements were uttered by the members of the “Will to Better the Hill” cabinet.

“We obviously haven’t been here that long, we don’t have that much ability… we haven’t had much time to build up the reputations that we could actually effect change that would be applicable on a widespread level,” said Pennington.

Those statements were the concluding remarks of the debate and, while they may have been honest and well-intentioned, they left a bad taste in the mouths of voters who are looking for great things in their Senate.

Despite a few dissatisfactory comments from the members of both cabinets, each candidate spoke passionately about bringing lasting change to Jewell and presented themselves as committed students ready and willing to lead.

Voting will begin Monday, April 15 during Jewell Time and conclude Thursday, April 18 at midnight. The elected 2019-2020 Student Senate executive cabinet will be announced Friday, April 19 during Jewell Time.