Photo by William Jewell College via The Hilltop Monitor photo library.

The Spring 2025 term has brought with it the announcement of academic, athletic, and personnel changes to William Jewell College. The Hilltop Monitor has written two articles about these changes already, discussing William Jewell College’s Dec. 5, 2024 declaration of financial exigency and Feb. 3, 2025 restructuring announcement. 

This third article is an investigative deep dive into the details of the changes, including interviews with many students, faculty and administrators. It focuses on the broader implications of the recent changes at the College.

We’ve provided headings and section overviews to help readers navigate the long-form article that follows. A list of supplemental primary documents is also provided here and includes: the Dec. 5, 2024 declaration of exigency; the Feb. 3, 2025 divisional restructuring announcement; the Mar. 25 memo to students regarding the Core; selections from the Mar. 28 administrative response to Hilltop questions; and the Apr. 22 announcement of changes to the Spanish program.

The Hilltop Monitor hopes that this article is informative. Please reach out to our team with any additional questions or information.

This story is developing.

Academic Changes

This section: Outlining of the new academic divisions – Core Curriculum changes – Program cuts – Interviews with faculty and students – Oxbridge honors program

Outlining of the new academic divisions

Following William Jewell’s declaration of financial exigency and restructuring of programs, academic changes to William Jewell College primarily consist of the creation of five new Academic Divisions and cuts to several programs. Students were informed of the creation of these divisions in an email from the president on Feb. 3. While students have come to know which division their program will be in, full details were somewhat elusive. Jewell administrators informed The Hilltop Monitor via email on Mar. 28 that majors were being divided as follows:

1. Analytical Sciences contains digital science and technology fields. A full list of majors in this division includes Computer Science (CSC), Cybersecurity (CYB), Data Science, Engineering, the new Information Technology major (ITS), Mathematics, and Physics.
2. Business and Communication contains exactly what it says: Accounting, the various Business majors and emphases (all under course prefix BUS), Communication and its various emphases, Digital Media Communication, Economics, and the graduate entrepreneurial MBA program.
3. Community Engagement and Applied Arts takes on the nursing, music, and education programs, including their overlaps. A full list of majors here includes Nursing, Elementary Education, Music (with emphases), Music Education, Music Studies, Secondary Education, and two graduate programs: the M.A. in Teaching, and the M.S. in Curriculum and Instruction.
4. Culture, Society, and Justice covers the humanities: English, History, Spanish*, Philosophy, and Political Science.
5. Natural and Behavioral Sciences covers biochemistry, biology, chemistry, and psychology.

Administrators say these changes are meant to “generate many new cross-collaborations” and “[adapt] programs to align with student demand to enhance relevancy.” However, it is not clear how these changes will enhance relevancy, given that courses are still listed with subject prefixes, not divisional prefixes. 

Course offerings for Fall 2025 are largely similar to previous years, although many departments are not listing courses for first year students. A notable exception is the Culture, Society, and Justice division, which lists two courses for first years on “being human” and “justice” (CSJ 110 and 120, respectively).

The Hilltop Monitor was able to talk to Dr. Sara Morrison, the new division head for Culture, Society, and Justice (CSJ) and ongoing associate dean for the Core Curriculum, about the changes students can expect to see. She told us via email that:

“As of Fall 2025, [Culture, Society, and Justice will] offer three majors—Literature and Culture; History; and Political Science and Philosophy (PSP)—and minors in Ancient Mediterranean Studies, Black Studies, Faith and Culture, and Spanish. We will also continue to offer the Pre-Law emphasis. Current students will be able to graduate with their declared primary majors. All CSJ majors will take 4 interdisciplinary courses at the Foundational Level on Being Human, Justice, Gods and Faiths, and Social Change, then a series of courses specific to their chosen major, followed by an interdisciplinary Capstone course. Next Fall, we are looking forward to designing more interdisciplinary minors and expanding our H-Lab offerings.” 

As of now it remains unclear what these newly structured majors will look like in terms of new classes and graduation requirements. And, as further explained below, it is now clear that CSJ (and the College) will no longer offer a major in Spanish to incoming students.

Jewell administrators also seek to build new programs, citing the “early success” of the new Computer Science and Cybersecurity programs. The College neither provided evidence of these programs’ success nor identified programs it could launch with existing resources.

Current students with multiple majors may experience changes in some but not all of their majors. A notable section of these is Education students, some of whom are required to have a primary major in the subject they plan to teach. To clarify this situation, we reached out to Associate Professor of Education and Chair Dr. Michael Stoll.

Dr. Stoll told us that while changes are being made to primary majors, education majors’ education coursework is determined by the State of Missouri, which sets requirements for teacher certification. As such, the requirements for Elementary Education majors will not change, since “the majority of the program’s requirements are mandated by the State of Missouri.”

Secondary education majors are required to have their first major in the subject they want to teach. This means that while their education coursework may not change, their subject-matter coursework might. Given this, the education department is working to “ensure that all teacher certification requirements can still be met within or alongside the newly reimagined majors.” Secondary Education majors should still be able to accomplish the necessary courses for certification, but may experience different requirements as faculty navigate the changes. The ramifications of these changes for new students are unclear.

The Hilltop Monitor also reached out to the nursing department for clarification. In an interview, Dr. Leesa McBroom, chair of nursing, explained that nursing is now part of a newly formed academic division with Music and Education, noting that although this combination may seem odd, all three fields “serve the broader community in direct and meaningful ways” and are held to strict national and state-level accreditation standards. She emphasized that while this restructuring is administrative, it is designed “to help our department thrive—not to alter the core of what makes Jewell Nursing strong.” 

Class sizes will remain steady at 30 to 36 students in nursing, despite a nationwide decline in nursing admissions, especially in the Midwest, which Dr. McBroom described as “a serious challenge.” Jewell will continue to offer a full range of nursing courses, although there may be more hybrid and flexible learning options in the future, particularly for accelerated students. Clinical placements, she noted, will continue to influence course scheduling based on hospital and clinic availability.

Dr. McBroom expressed excitement about new interdisciplinary collaborations, saying, “Together, I believe we can create powerful, interdisciplinary learning experiences.” However, she voiced concern about public perception, hoping the community understands that Jewell is “moving forward with intention and care,” rather than simply reacting to challenges. Ultimately, she affirmed her confidence in Jewell’s future, saying she believes the College will emerge from financial exigency stronger and better positioned for long-term success.

Changing the Core

In a memo to students on Mar. 25, Associate Dean for the Core Curriculum Dr. Sara Morrison informed students that the core curriculum requirements were being overhauled as part of academic restructuring efforts. Three significant changes were made to the core curriculum.

First, Core math and writing requirements were overhauled. The memo noted that there are two new requirements in level one: “Writing in the Disciplines (WID)” and “Quantitative Reasoning (QR).” The timeline for this change was not specified. CTI 102 Written Communication and CTI 105 Math for the Liberal Arts, the courses that were supplanted by these new requirements, are still on the FA25 online course schedule. As of the time of writing, there are no courses labelled online as satisfying the “WID” or “QR” requirements.

Second, CTI level II exemptions were waived. Students previously could not enroll in a Level II course covered by their major. (For example, Nursing students did not have to take a Science and Technology course.) This exemption has been removed. Students now have to take three level II courses in different subject areas, although now this can include their major subject.

Finally, the Diversity requirement was eliminated. While CTI 150 Identity and Society is still required, courses are no longer labelled DU (Diversity US) or DG (Diversity Global). Morrison notes that “even though [the diversity] requirement has been eliminated, students will still take courses in the Core with a focus on diversity in a range of ways.”

Below is a list of all of the new core requirements:

• CTI 100, 150, WID or 102, QR
• World Language requirement for BA students, up to 112
• CTI level 2: 3 different Level 2 areas, with no exemptions based on majors
• CTI capstone

Program Cuts

First round of cuts

The Feb. 3 announcement from interim President Chambers also informed students that several programs were being cut, including Nonprofit Leadership, Integrated Healthcare, Theatre, the Honors Institute in Critical Thinking, and the Cardinal Sound athletic band. For detailed information about the effects of these cuts, check this previous article from the Hilltop team.

In short, the College will not be recruiting new students into these majors, but is still required to enable current students to graduate. This can be done with teach-out arrangements, but any arrangement made must be in compliance with Higher Learning Commission guidelines.

Regarding faculty cuts, College administrators informed us that determinations on which programs to cut aimed to “ensur[e] relevance and [maintain] excellence for students, employers and the community long into the future.” The Hilltop inquired about specificities of the methodology of the Financial Exigency Management Committee (FEMC) as it pertained to decision-making and faculty layoffs. We were told that the FEMC was made up of six faculty members, two administrators, and one trustee, but College administrators declined to comment on FEMC methodology.

Spanish Major Discontinued

This first announcement of program cuts on Feb. 3 would not be the only one. On Apr. 22, Chair of Languages and Professor of Spanish Dr. David Lisenby informed Spanish students via email that the FEMC had chosen to “discontinue the Spanish major.” 

Lisenby confirmed to Hilltop that Spanish was not listed in the first round of academic program cuts because Spanish is “continuing in a new form as part of the Literature & Culture major.” At the same time, Lisenby noted that the new Literature and Culture major “is not a Spanish major, and the Spanish major as it exists is indeed being phased out on the recommendation of the FEMC.” 

Despite the phasing out of the Spanish major, the Spanish minor will still be available to current and incoming students. SPA 111/112 (Elementary Spanish I/II) will continue to be offered, too, so students can still study Spanish and use it to satisfy their Core Curriculum BA world language requirement.

Lisenby is confident that Spanish will continue at Jewell due to high demand. Upper-level courses currently “[have] healthy enrollment,” and Lisenby “look[s] forward to continuing to offer Spanish courses (and programs) to support students’ Spanish language learning in conjunction with study of culture, literature, society, history, and all the many dimensions [Spanish courses address].” 

The Hilltop has learned that Professor of Spanish and Hilltop Faculty Advisor Dr. Robert Wells will not be returning to Jewell in Fall 2025. His contract was not renewed by the College as a result of the FEMC’s decision to effectively eliminate the Spanish major. Wells, a tenured professor and former languages department chair who has taught in SPA and CTI at WJC since 2015, is within the group of Jewell faculty that are being laid off. While Wells did not provide extensive comments to the Hilltop, he expressed feeling “profoundly angry, anxious and sad in regard to the elimination of both [his] long-held position and the Spanish major.” 

Comments from Faculty and Students 

The Hilltop reached out to other professors in programs that were cut to determine the justifications, processes, and timeframes for the cuts. Dr. Tom Vansaghi, director of the Nonprofit Leadership program and a tenured professor who started teaching at WJC in 2015, told the Hilltop that his discussions about which program(s) might be cut began with Business Chair Dr. Kelli Schutte in Aug. 2024, four months before the College officially declared financial exigency. Vansaghi was officially informed of Nonprofit Leadership’s removal in Jan. 2025. 

The Hilltop has separately been notified that, while other academic program cuts and faculty layoffs were similarly communicated to faculty in late Jan. 2025, many faculty members were taken by complete surprise with regard to FEMC decisions, cuts, terminations, etc. As mentioned in a previous Hilltop article, approximately 20-30% of the overall WJC faculty (tenured and non-tenured) have been terminated as part of the financial exigency process. A complete list of faculty layoffs has not yet been made public.

Dr. Vansaghi, as cited in his own words, “knew it was highly likely that [Nonprofit Leadership] would be discontinued” due to the program’s low enrollment, but continued to put his all into everything he taught. Nonprofit Leadership students, he said, are “extremely motivated, intelligent and called to do amazing things in their lives.”  

When asked to reflect on the personal and professional impact of the College’s decision to eliminate the Nonprofit Leadership department, Dr. Vansaghi stated the following:

“I went through the stages of grief—it was painful and deeply heartbreaking. For over a decade, I poured my heart into teaching courses in Nonprofit Leadership. That’s why it’s been difficult to understand why more students haven’t chosen it as their major, minor, or as a calling. Today’s students are incredibly driven to make a difference in the world, so it’s puzzling—and honestly disheartening—that this path didn’t resonate more widely. In reflecting on this, I can’t help but hold myself accountable. Perhaps I didn’t communicate the quality, the rigor, or the importance of this work as clearly or compellingly as I needed to. Given the painfully low number of students who chose this path, I understand why my position was no longer sustainable. It feels like a profound personal and professional failure, and that’s incredibly difficult to sit with. While I accept the outcome, it’s not because I lacked passion or effort—I poured everything I had into this work. Still, the results didn’t reflect the vision I held so dearly. In that sense, I recognize that it’s time for change, even if it breaks my heart.”

Students also spoke favorably of the Nonprofit Leadership program, in spite of the College’s decision to eliminate it. Former NPL student Ryan West told us that “Dr. Vansaghi’s Introduction to Nonprofit Leadership course opened my knowledge of servitude, vocation and ethical standards in leadership [… It] offered me insight into my personal future that I didn’t know I needed — how my deepest gladness can help the world’s deepest need. Nonprofit[s are] not only helpful, but rather essential to our societies and their functions, and delving into the depths of this servitude will always impact my future decisions as a leader in my community.”

Ian Wooldridge, another graduating senior, emphasized the “direct, real-world experience” that Nonprofit Leadership brought him, citing practical work with local nonprofits. He further specified that the NPL skillset brought significant value across his personal and professional life: “Studying nonprofit leadership helped equip me with additional tools and resources to utilize as a Greek leader, where I learned to manage a small nonprofit as a college student. I often treated the nonprofit classrooms I was in as consulting workshops for my fraternity and then applied what I learned.”

Dr. Vansaghi shared his hope that “students at William Jewell [would not] lose faith in this great institution.” He concluded, “To my faculty colleagues, the administration, and the students—it has been an honor to walk alongside you. I offer my heartfelt farewell and deepest gratitude for the countless ways this journey has enriched my life. The experience has been profoundly meaningful, shaped by shared purpose, intellectual curiosity, and a genuine sense of community. I leave with enduring hope and sincere wishes for the College’s continued strength, impact, and vitality for the next 175 years and beyond.”

The Hilltop also reached out to Nathan Wyman, professor of theatre and director of theatre and dance, to discuss the dismantling of theatre majors and minors. Wyman, also a tenured professor, has taught at Jewell for 27 years, since 1998. He attended Jewell for his undergraduate degree as well, completing a BA in studio art in 1995. Though Wyman is disappointed at the removal of the theatre majors, he feels confident that Jewell Theatre Company will continue to exist. Wyman explained that certain elements of Jewell Theatre are set to continue: 

“The College will continue to recruit students for Theatre Talent Award Scholarships and will support producing a fall and spring play (or musical) each year. The scholarship students will be required to participate in one or both productions each year depending on their scholarship level. Academic credit will be offered for students participating in the productions much like students who take credit for Choir or Band. They will register for 0-1 credit hours and will receive a grade at the end of each semester. These courses are now listed in Self Service as THE 225 Theatre Performance and THE 226 Theatre Production. 

I have accepted a staff position beginning August 1 that will allow me to continue to produce the plays with the support of a guest stage director and students will have opportunities to design and produce technical elements of the shows (much like we did this year). A few shows are already in consideration for next year’s theatre season. (My staff position will include other new responsibilities that I cannot share until the contract is complete, but I am truly excited about the opportunities the college administration plans to entrust me with).” 

In addition, Professor Wyman assured us that all current theatre students will be able to graduate with their intended major, whether that is through Jewell or not. He stated, “Dr. Coleman, chair of performing arts, and I have worked with theatre and musical theatre majors on ‘teach out’ plans to find ways they can complete their degrees at Jewell. Some have taken advantage of this, and others have made plans to transfer or take a gap year.” 

While Wyman is “torn about the [College’s] decision to discontinue the theatre and musical theatre majors, the support of the College to keep the production aspects of the program going leaves [him] optimistic that there is a commitment to keeping the arts alive at Jewell.”

Along with the many Jewell faculty members whose positions have been eliminated by the FEMC and the College, and those that will be retiring at the end of the Spring 2025 term, some professors will be leaving Jewell of their own accord for jobs elsewhere. For example, Dr. Anthony Maglione, director of choral studies and professor of music, music education and Oxbridge music, will be departing Jewell to act as director of choral studies at the University of Houston; he will also be the new director of the Houston Symphony Chorus. Meanwhile, Dr. Lilah Rahn-Lee, chair of biology and associate professor of biology and Oxbridge molecular biology, will assume an assistant professor position at Southern Connecticut State University in Fall 2025. 

The state of the Oxbridge program

Divisional reshuffling and loss of faculty places the Oxbridge Honors program in a peculiar place. Oxbridge majors were not sorted into any of the five new academic divisions, but the Oxbridge program was also not on the list of programs being cut.

Dr. Elizabeth Sperry, senior tutor of the Oxbridge program, told the Hilltop that academic changes to the Oxbridge program “include embedding tutorials in non-Oxbridge classes, replacing comprehensive examinations with thesis projects, and broadening options for students who wish to study on campus during their junior years.” 

Oxbridge’s financial status is also unclear. Prior to the Dec. 2024 declaration of financial exigency, Dr. Sperry and College administrators announced significant funding cuts to the program. In that meeting, Dr. Sperry explained that Oxbridge program funding relied on a gift from the Hall family foundation that has since run out. As a result, Oxbridge students staying at Jewell are not eligible for a Journey Grant to study abroad.

This funding change makes traditional study in the UK at the University of Oxford, the flagship enterprise of the Oxbridge program, difficult if not impossible. With the removal of any Jewell funding, costs of studying abroad for a year at Oxford have risen to be prohibitively expensive. The Oxbridge program has, in the interim, paused recruiting new students to the only remaining WJC honors program.

Changes to Student Experience

This section: Student organizations – Budgeting process uncertainty – Transparency from administrators – Work-study cuts – Federal funding freezes

Budgeting changes may cause cuts in Student Life activities, intramural sports, and student organizations. If budget cuts require the removal of substantial numbers of faculty and staff, then student organizations – important but “non-essential” for the academic functions of a university – may be on the chopping block as well.

Consequently, the Hilltop asked College administrators “what clubs, organizations, and student employment programs [can] expect in terms of funding for Fall 2025.”

The entirety of the administrators’ response is stated below.

“The College will launch its budget process for 2025-2026 this April. It is unclear at this time how funding for each student organization may be impacted. Student organizations are a key part of the Jewell experience, and the College is committed to empowering appropriately with available resources.”

This is a response of uncertainty in a situation where clarity is paramount. It appears that, at present, College administrators cannot guarantee that student organizations will receive any funding for the next academic year. Again, the implications of student organization cuts are unclear.

Student Workers 

Institutional cuts will not affect students enrolled in the federal work study program, since their wages are paid by the Department of Education. Indeed, College administrators confirmed that “the federal work study program will not change.”

With that said, students not eligible for work study may not have success finding College employment, as “campus employment opportunities for workship [paid for by the College itself]… have been limited for some time.”

It is also unlikely that the recent executive order dismantling the Department of Education (ED) will affect the federal work study program. The order calls for the Secretary of Education to, “to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law, take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return authority over education to the States and local communities.” (§2a)

The federal work study program is enshrined in federal law as part of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 USC 28), so it must be protected under federal law. While the effective closure of ED – note that ED was created by an act of Congress and so cannot be eliminated entirely – may affect the overhead of funding, federal law requires the payouts to be made.

The Hilltop will not comment here on whether the executive’s general disregard for the rule of law will affect work study programs.

Athletic Cuts?

This section: Changes to Cardinal Athletics – Lack of program cuts? – Student voices on program cuts

College administrators are also considering the impact of financial changes on Cardinal Athletics. Athletic programs seem largely unaffected by the exigency requirements and reductions made elsewhere, and deputy director of athletics Joel Lueken told the Hilltop that “at this point there will be no changes to the athletic department.”

No programs are being cut at this time, but Cardinal athletes may be less inclined to stay at the College moving forward. College administrators told the Hilltop that “[r]oster sizes, capital expense, scholarship budgets, competition costs and inflation, and divisional alignment [i.e. div. II vs. other options] are all being studied.” It’s unclear when changes to Cardinal Athletics will land, if at all.

While new and incoming recruits will have their athletic scholarships reduced, Leuken and administrators claim there will be no reduction in scholarship for current students. 

Contrary to administrative assurances that Cardinal Athletics remains stable, the experience of one tennis player at William Jewell, who was interviewed by the Hilltop and wished to remain anonymous, reveals the growing concern of some athletes about the future of their sports. While no teams have been officially cut, athletes are navigating an environment marked by uncertainty regarding scholarships, recruiting and team viability. The athlete told us that “the past few months have been extremely stressful,” due to concerns about the lack of clear communication from their coaching team. 

According to the tennis player, only a few scholarship athletes will remain on the women’s tennis team next year, and the coach would only have $8,000 to recruit up to five new players – a sum insufficient in light of rising tuition fees and new limits on scholarships. While scholarships for current student-athletes are not being reduced, the changes affecting new recruits and ongoing financial pressures have raised questions for student-athletes, who wonder if staying at Jewell will allow them to make the most of their college athletic experience.

Leadership and the State of the College

This section: Leadership changes to the College – Departure of Cabinet members and search for Interim President – College commitments to diversity challenged – Budget measures, stability?

We also asked College administrators about the College’s long-term prospects and leadership changes.

Hilltop confirmed the departure of two Cabinet members: Dr. Daniel Jasper, vice president for academic affairs, is leaving to become the provost of Millsaps College in Jackson, Miss.; and Dr. Rodney Smith, vice president for access and engagement, will be leaving the College of his own volition.

Interim President Susan Chambers will continue to serve through May 31, 2025, when her term ends. College administrators confirmed that “the Board is vetting candidates for a new interim President,” but did not provide specific dates for the new interim president’s confirmation. The search for a permanent president is still paused.

Dr. Keli Braitman, professor of psychology and current dean of the faculty, will serve as interim vice president for academic affairs in 2025-26.

The College does not appear to have any intention to replace Dr. Rodney Smith nor establish any office related to equitable representation or diversity, equity, and inclusion. When asked for a justification, College administrators cited “new external forces that the College must navigate as it considers… a community that reflects the world beyond the Hill.” 

When the Hilltop team asked for further elaboration on specific external forces, we were told that “18-year-old high school graduates are declining in number due to birth rates and are expected to do so over the next 15 years across the Midwest… Over 90% of the total learner population at Jewell right now consists of this declining demographic.”

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs are increasingly under fire in American universities, as the US government has withdrawn federal grant funding from many top universities that have these programs. College administrators at WJC are nominally “committed to [College] values of authentic engagement and inclusive communities,” although they made no further attempt to specify their commitment to representation.

We also asked administrators about the state of the College. In the short term, Jewell will remain open in 2025-26. Jewell also intends to maintain an expense budget of $30 million through 2027-28, although its ability to achieve this is unclear. Form 990 data tells us that Jewell’s FY2023 expenses totalled $53 million, and previous College correspondence told students that current budget reduction measures lessened this figure by $12 million (implying a current expense budget of $41 million). College administrators did not specify how they intended to reconcile these figures.

College administrators also plan to increase “annual student-based revenue” by four to five million dollars. This increase would not come as a result of tuition hikes. College administrators told us that “we cannot just increase tuition and fees substantially year-over-year.” Instead, the College aims to create “new programs that attract different learners;” admin cited the new Entrepreneurial MBA program as a potential source for student revenue.

Student Perspectives 

This section: Student survey – Results from WJC students – Student concerns unresolved – Lingering uncertainty

Before Jewell announced the decision to adopt financial exigency on Dec. 5, 2024, The Hilltop Monitor conducted a survey open to the student body. The survey included multiple-choice and free-form questions aimed to reveal student opinions about Jewell’s financial and policy decisions along with the greater situation, which, at the time, was intended to be used for an opinion-based editorial by Hilltop writer Naomi Speck. The survey was conducted between Oct. 23-30, 2024, and we received sixty responses from WJC students.

More than half of the participants offered a free-form statement response when asked if there was anything else they’d like to note. The responses largely consisted of several primary concerns from current WJC students, including: high tuition costs; excessive fees; unaddressed infrastructure, maintenance and pest issues; lack of transparency / poor communication from College administration; and investments in projects students believed were unnecessary compared to more pressing concerns (e.g The Link). Many students also expressed at the time that they were at least considering the possibility of transferring from Jewell–though in regard to the survey’s section on financial hardship for students. 

In an unpublished Hilltop opinion piece that was set to accompany the survey results, staff writer Speck stated the following: 

“Jewell students don’t feel that the way decisions are currently being made is conducive to the longevity of William Jewell College, and it sometimes seems that administration is working under different principles than officially stated. We are told [by administration] that removing paper towel dispensers is ‘going green.’ We are told that the Health Center was the ‘Cadillac of college healthcare’ and that it’s reasonable to leave us with telehealth for the same fee. We are told that the removal of financial aid for a junior year overseas is an ‘evolution in the Oxbridge program.’ We are told that according to some policy we signed, the administration is within its rights to fine everyone within a residence hall for one person’s possible vandalism. But [administrators] can’t regain students’ trust without real, tangible results, without caring about us as people and showing us that you are listening to our concerns and doing your best to meet us where we are. Administration may hold the power in terms of financial decisions, but the goal of a nonprofit college should be to support its students, and we do not feel that enough effort is being put towards this objective.”

While gathering administrative responses on the article’s content, the college’s decision to declare financial exigency was announced. Given the sudden change of situation and newfound transparency that many students were awaiting, both The Hilltop Monitor staff and the author of the editorial decided not to publish the article at that time. However, the team believes that the aforementioned concerns of students gathered in our prior research are still relevant to lingering feelings among the student body and help contextualize the perspectives of students both prior to and following the institution’s public declaration of financial exigency.

Interviews with current students confirm this sense of dissonance. Ivan Calderon is a third-year student at Jewell majoring in Musical Theatre and English. On Apr. 28th, 2025, Ivan explained to the Hilltop how the recent changes at the College have impacted his education and also elaborated on the lingering uncertainty:

“I’m a double major [Musical Theatre and English], so I’m fortunate to have at least one of my programs still standing for the most part. With that said, to say things plainly and without a lot of context for these decisions, the theatre program was cut and [other considerable changes have been made to the English department].

Things are very uncertain, and I have no idea what support the theatre department will receive from the school after this semester. I also worry that the professors within the English department will be overworked with having to shoulder [an extra burden] within the program. [Long-time English Professor Dr. Mark Walters is retiring at the end of the 2024-25 academic year.] I’m aware that this response is emotional. I have no intention to fear-monger. 

All I hope is that the performing arts department still has the ability and resources to produce performances on our campus next semester, and that my professors are looked after.”

Closing Thoughts

While William Jewell College has been a thriving institution for over 175 years, its future is now in jeopardy due to its current financial crisis. The ongoing restructuring efforts related to financial exigency, while aimed at making the college more sustainable in the long run, have caused significant stress for the overwhelming majority of students and have led to the layoff of a significant number of cherished Jewell faculty members—along with the loss of helpful and much-appreciated staff as well. 

Despite the difficulties experienced by the Jewell community over the past few months, the administration maintains that William Jewell College will continue to offer an outstanding academic experience. The upcoming 2025–2026 academic year will be a crucial test for Jewell, however, as the future of many key academic programs, student organizations—including this very publication—and the College itself remains unclear and may be subject to further substantial financial cuts.

On Nov. 8, Missourians will take to the ballot boxes to cast their votes in the general election. A number of state and federal officials are up for election or re-election. Another piece published in this issue of the Hilltop Monitor addresses the critical race for President between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump. While national elections are important, local and state elections are also crucial — local elections may even have more impact on a community than national elections. This article, however, focuses on six ballot initiatives in the State of Missouri. 

Register to Vote!

In order to vote on any of these ballot initiatives or in any federal or state election, you must be eligible and registered to vote. To register to vote in Missouri, you must be a United States citizen, a resident of Missouri, and 17 ½ years old (although you must be 18 by Election Day).

According to the Secretary of State, a person cannot vote in Missouri elections if they are imprisoned, on probation or parole after a felony conviction, have been convicted of a voting-related felony or misdemeanor, or declared incapacitated.

The registration deadline in Missouri is the fourth Wednesday before Election Day – for the upcoming Nov. 5 election, that deadline is Oct. 9.

You can register to vote or check your registration status with the Missouri government here.

Local Ballot Initiatives

First, though: what is a ballot initiative?

Ballot initiatives are measures placed on a state or local ballot. These initiatives can propose anything, from bonds for water towers to legalizing marijuana (which was legalized in Missouri by initiative in 2022). In Missouri, such initiatives can be generated in two ways.

Any citizen can create an initiative petition to enact legislation or update the Missouri Constitution. To appear on the ballot, a petitioner must send the text of their initiative and necessary signatures to the Secretary of State (currently Jay Ashcroft) within six months of an election.

If a proposal seeks to amend the Constitution, it requires 8% of eligible voters in two-thirds of Missouri’s eight Congressional districts to sign a petition. If it seeks to amend state law, it only needs 5% of eligible voters to sign off on the petition.

While the Missouri state legislature can also propose constitutional amendments by joint resolution, it cannot enact these amendments unilaterally. Regardless of how a measure comes to the Missouri people, a simple majority is required to pass any measure. 

Nov. Ballot Measures in Missouri

 To avoid bias or subjectivity, this article uses  the official Fair Ballot Language provided by the secretary of state’s office whenever possible. This Fair Ballot Language will appear on official ballots on Election Day.

Amendment 2

What’s it about? Legalizing sports betting in Missouri

How did it get here? Amendment 2 was proposed by initiative petition.

What does it say?

“Do you want to amend the Missouri Constitution to:

• allow the Missouri Gaming Commission to regulate licensed sports wagering including online sports betting, gambling boats, professional sports betting districts and mobile licenses to sports betting operators;
• restrict sports betting to individuals physically located in the state and over the age of 21;
• allow license fees prescribed by the Commission and a 10% wagering tax on revenues received to be appropriated for education after expenses incurred by the Commission and required funding of the Compulsive Gambling Prevention Fund; and
• allow for the general assembly to enact laws consistent with this amendment?

State governmental entities estimate onetime costs of $660,000, ongoing annual costs of at least $5.2 million, and initial license fee revenue of $11.75 million. Because the proposal allows for deductions against sports gaming revenues, they estimate unknown tax revenue ranging from $0 to $28.9 million annually. Local governments estimate unknown revenue.”

The context: In 2018, the Supreme Court overturned a federal law barring states from legalizing sports betting. Since then, 38 states and the District of Columbia have voted to legalize betting on professional sports. Under Amendment 2, sports betting would not include fantasy sports, “wagering on the performance or nonperformance of any [collegiate] athlete [from Missouri],” or wagering on youth events.

Amendment 3

What’s it about? Reproductive rights

How did it get here? Amendment 3 was proposed by initiative petition.

What does it say?

“Do you want to amend the Missouri Constitution to:

• establish a right to make decisions about reproductive health care, including abortion and contraceptives, with any governmental interference of that right presumed invalid;
• remove Missouri’s ban on abortion;
• allow regulation of reproductive health care to improve or maintain the health of the patient;
• require the government not to discriminate, in government programs, funding, and other activities, against persons providing or obtaining reproductive health care; and
• allow abortion to be restricted or banned after Fetal Viability except to protect the life or health of the woman?

State governmental entities estimate no costs or savings, but unknown impact. Local governmental entities estimate costs of at least $51,000 annually in reduced tax revenues. Opponents estimate a potentially significant loss to state revenue.”

The context: In 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, two cases that established federal protections for abortion to a certain point in pregnancy. In effect, the Supreme Court returned this decision to each state. Under a 2019 statute not in force until this decision, Missouri immediately banned all abortion in the state, including in cases of sexual violence.

Proposals to legalize abortion have succeeded in seven states: Kansas, Kentucky, California, Michigan, Vermont, Montana, and Ohio). According to New York Magazine, measures to enshrine or expand abortion rights are also on the ballot in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, and South Dakota.

Amendment 5

What’s it about? Constructing a riverboat casino at Lake of the Ozarks

How did it get here? Amendment 5 was proposed by initiative petition.

What does it say?

Do you want to amend the Missouri Constitution to:

• allow the Missouri Gaming Commission to issue one additional gambling boat license to operate on the portion of the Osage River from the Missouri River to the Bagnell Dam;
• require the prescribed location shall include artificial spaces that contain water and are within 500 feet of the 100-year base flood elevation as established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and
• require all state revenues derived from the issuance of the gambling boat license shall be appropriated to early-childhood literacy programs in public institutions of elementary education?

State governmental entities estimate one-time costs of $763,000, ongoing costs of $2.2 million annually, initial fee revenue of $271,000, ongoing admission and other fee revenue of $2.1 million annually, and annual gaming tax revenue of $14.3 million. Local governments estimate unknown revenue.

The context: Currently, the Missouri Constitution only allows riverboat gambling on the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. This amendment would enable a gaming license to be issued for a gambling boat on the Osage River, near the Lake of the Ozarks. KCUR has reported that Bally’s, the operator of a Kansas City casino, plans to build a casino at the Lake.

Amendment 6

What’s it about? Sheriff’s pensions: part of “administration of justice” or no?

How did it get here? Missouri’s general assembly proposed this measure to voters.

What does it say?

“Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to provide that the administration of justice shall include the levying of costs and fees to support salaries and benefits for certain current and former law enforcement personnel?

State and local governmental entities estimate an unknown fiscal impact.”

What’s the context? In 2021, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that a $3 court fee going to sheriff’s retirement funds was not consistent with the Missouri Constitution. The Court argued that since the sheriffs’ retirement fund is not related to the administration of justice, Missouri courts could not collect that fee.

Passage of this amendment would enable the courts to continue collecting this fee by including the pensions of retired law enforcement personnel under “administration of justice.”

Amendment 7

What’s it about? Restricting ranked-choice voting and clarifying that only U.S. citizens can vote in state elections

How did it get here? Missouri’s general assembly proposed this measure to voters.

What does it say?

“Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:

• Make the Constitution consistent with state law by only allowing citizens of the United States to vote;
• Prohibit the ranking of candidates by limiting voters to a single vote per candidate or issue; and
• Require the plurality winner of a political party primary to be the single candidate at a general election?

State and local governmental entities estimate no costs or savings.”

What’s the context? This amendment does two things.

First, it would prohibit non-citizens from voting, which Missouri law already does. Proponents of the measure claim that Missouri’s constitution, which states that “all citizens [may vote],” does not prevent localities from enabling non-citizens to vote.

Second, it prohibits Missourians from later adopting ranked-choice voting measures, which have been passed in a number of states. Ranked-choice voting permits voters to rank candidates in order of preference, an alternative to “strict plurality” voting, also known as “first past the post” voting. Opponents of the measure claim that these two provisions were included together to ban ranked-choice voting under the guise of prohibiting something already forbidden under state law.

Proposition A

What’s it about? Raising the minimum wage in Missouri

How did it get here? This proposition was proposed by initiative petition.

What does it say?

“Do you want to amend Missouri law to:

• increase minimum wage January 1, 2025 to $13.75 per hour, increasing $1.25 per hour each year until 2026, when the minimum wage would be $15.00 per hour;
• adjust minimum wage based on changes in the Consumer Price Index each January beginning in 2027;
• require all employers to provide one hour of paid sick leave for every thirty hours worked;
• allow the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations to provide oversight and enforcement; and
• exempt governmental entities, political subdivisions, school districts and education institutions?

State governmental entities estimate one-time costs ranging from $0 to $53,000, and ongoing costs ranging from $0 to at least $256,000 per year by 2027. State and local government tax revenue could change by an unknown annual amount depending on business decisions.”

What’s the context? Missouri’s minimum wage is currently $12.30/hr. In 2018, Missouri voters approved Proposition B, a measure that increased the minimum wage gradually, to $12/hr in 2023. Afterward, the minimum wage would increase or decrease according to the Consumer Price Index. Businesses would also be required to provide a week of paid sick leave.

If Your Time is Short:

Missouri provides its citizens with ways to approve or reject proposed constitutional amendments and laws. Six measures are on the ballot for Nov. 8, during the general election. To make your voice heard on these issues, you must register to vote in Missouri. You can do this online through the Secretary of State or by going to the election office in your local county.

As global outrage grew, many expressed unwavering support for Israel. However, it’s crucial to recognize that history is not confined to our attention span. Before making judgments, we must understand that the complexity of this situation requires a consideration of the historical context spanning at least the last two centuries.

History of Israel and Palestine 

Beginning in the 1840s, the British viewed Palestine as a strategic Middle Eastern foothold, formalizing their interest during World War I through the 1917 Balfour Declaration, which called for a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. Tensions escalated between Arabs and Jews in the following decades as a growing number of Jewish people sought refuge in Palestine following the Holocaust. Driven by a need for safety after centuries of persecution, Jewish individuals desired their own state. Simultaneously, Palestinians witnessed their own homes being forcibly taken and their land colonized, deepening the conflict. The conflict grew so large that the UK turned the issue over to the United Nations in 1947.  After looking at alternatives, the UN proposed the separation of Palestine into two independent states, one Palestinian-Arab and the other Jewish. The Jewish state proclaimed its independence as Israel. In the 1948 war involving neighboring Arab States, Israel’s new army expanded its territory, leading to the expulsion or flight of about 700,000 Palestinians, constituting approximately 85% of the indigenous Arab population in the captured area, who were never permitted to return.

Over the past 50 years, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has persisted with Israel constructing settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, where more than 700,000 Jews now reside, despite international law deeming these settlements illegal. Israel’s policies, particularly concerning the Gaza Strip, have faced global criticism. Since 2007 Gaza has been under a stringent blockade, tightly controlled by Israel, encompassed by concrete walls and barbed wire fences.

Palestinians in Gaza endure severe restrictions, with limited access to trade, water and electricity due to the blockade. They are prohibited from entering or leaving the territory except in extremely rare cases such as urgent, life-threatening medical conditions. This situation has been described by human rights groups as akin to living in the world’s largest open-air prison.

Israel’s Response to the Attack  

In response to the recent attack on Oct. 7, Israel has taken significant military actions, which have sparked widespread international concern. Reports have emerged detailing alleged war crimes committed by Israel, including the bombing of hospitals and deliberate cutoffs of essential services such as electricity and water supply in Gaza. 

According to the Secretary General of Amnesty International, Agnès Callamard: “In their stated intent to use all means to destroy Hamas, Israeli forces have shown a shocking disregard for civilian lives. They have pulverized street after street of residential buildings killing civilians on a mass scale and destroying essential infrastructure, while new restrictions mean Gaza is fast running out of water, medicine, fuel and electricity. Testimonies from eyewitnesses and survivors highlighted, again and again, how Israeli attacks decimated Palestinian families, causing such destruction that surviving relatives have little but rubble to remember their loved ones by.” 

American Involvement 

The United States, among other countries, has been a long-standing supporter of Israel, providing substantial financial aid and military assistance. This support has generated debates and criticism, raising questions about the indirect endorsement of Israel’s military actions in the region.

The US is currently continuing its extensive financial support to Israel, having provided the country with $158 billion since World War II, surpassing aid given to any other nation. Although US officials have thus far refrained from sending troops, they actively support the Israeli military and security forces. In response to the recent Hamas attack, the US is sending guided-missile carriers, F-35 fighters and other equipment

On Oct. 13, The American public seemed to agree with the support of Israel. 44% of the 1,313 adult  Americans polled said that Israel’s response to Hamas attacks has been about right, while about 25% said it has actually been too little.  An article published on Oct. 23 showed how these numbers have changed over the last week. It found 7 in 10 Americans — support providing aid to Israel. When asked for opinions on Israel’s response to Hamas’ attack, 35% of registered voters said Israel’s retaliation has been “about right” while one-quarter said Israel’s response has been “not harsh enough.”  Those numbers may seem like a relatively small change, but it does show that opinions are changing slowly but surely. This may be due to the increasing number of young people who are speaking out against Israel’s action.

Should America be Supporting Israel

The significant financial aid and military assistance provided by the United States endorse Israel’s actions. This only leads to more human rights violations and exacerbates tensions in the region. There needs to be a more balanced approach that promotes diplomacy, dialogue and a just resolution to the conflict. Americans should advocate for a reconsideration of the substantial aid provided and urge the US to leverage its influence to encourage both parties to engage in peaceful negotiations and respect for international law instead of unequivocally supporting the Israeli government.

By promoting initiatives that encourage mutual understanding and respect, the focus can shift from military aid to diplomatic solutions. The goal should be to create a more peaceful coexistence. It’s vital for policymakers and leaders to carefully consider the implications of their support and work towards a future where both Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace and security.

Conclusion

The ethics of the Israel-Hamas conflict is very nuanced and this article can only act as a brief overview. Nevertheless, it is important to consider not only the tragedies that Israel and its citizens have gone through but also the continuous and systemic tragedies that the Palestinian people have faced. To be as informed and humane as possible we must pay close attention to both sides of the issue. Unequivocally supporting a single side is how we allow injustice to happen.

While discussing these issues, it’s essential to emphasize that criticism of the Israeli government’s policies should not translate into hatred or prejudice against Jewish people. Not all Jewish individuals support the Israeli government’s actions, just as not all Palestinians support the actions of Hamas. Navigating this topic demands careful consideration that aims to promote understanding and empathy while condemning violence and injustice.

A great deal of myths and misconceptions surround so-called “Genetically Modified Organisms.” From health influencers advising consumers to stay away from them to pictures of fruits stabbed with syringes, these misconceptions have led to very negative views about GMOs amongst the general population. As such, it is an ongoing project in science communication to clarify these misconceptions.

Before it is possible to understand both the benefits and flaws of GMOs, it is important to understand what GMOs are. In a sense, humanity has been genetically modifying its crops since the dawn of agriculture. Modern corn is derived from a grass called teosinte that grows only a small number of small green kernels. Compared to its wild counterparts, even corn listed as non-GMO has a horrifying level of genetic modification. 

Rather than a biological definition, GMOs have a legal distinction. The term mandated by the Food and Drug Administration is “bioengineered.” Bioengineered organisms are defined as organisms that contain DNA that they could not have received from conventional plant breeding. For example, crops such as BT corn are made through a process called transgenesis, the introduction of genes from other organisms into a desired host. Transgenesis is the only way by which any FDA approved GMOs have been made. Due to the specificity of this definition, other methods of genetic modification are often able to use non-GMO labels.

There are many such methods that are used. Selective breeding has been used for most of human history to produce and amplify crops with more beneficial traits. With enough patience and thoughtfulness, humanity has been able to achieve some truly incredible effects. Brassica oleracea is a plant that has been bred into many different cultivars, with broccoli and kale being just two of the dozens of cultivars listed by the North Carolina State University’s plant atlas. There are two large inefficiencies with this method. Due to its reliance on natural mutations in plants, certain plants are not able to be modified this way. It can also take a long time for the required mutations to appear.

In an attempt to speed up this process, humans have been using mutagens to induce mutation for the last century. This process, known as mutation breeding, allows for the large-scale introduction of new genetic material into a crop population. This increase in variance allows conventional breeding methods to push crops to have both higher productivity and higher tolerances to stress. Despite this being a very human endeavor to modify the genetics of a plant, all genes present in the final crop could have been obtained by conventional breeding techniques. As such, mutagenic crops do not have to disclose this fact to the consumer.

GMOs gain a great deal of precision over these conventional methods. Where mutation breeding uses random mutations, biological engineering inserts specific genes into a crop. There are three primary uses of GMOs: resistance to pests, resistance to herbicides and increased yield. When, in the 1990s, papaya ringspot virus (PRSV) nearly destroyed the Hawaiian papaya industry, a genetically engineered papaya known as the Rainbow papaya was engineered with resistance to PRSV. This additional resistance allowed the papaya industry to recover, and only minor differences in their nutritional values have been found. Roundup Ready (RR) sugar beets have added genes which give them increased resistance to glyphosate, a common herbicide. This herbicide resistance allows for farmers to plant crops closer together, reducing both land and herbicide usage. AquAdvantage salmon have been modified to include a growth hormone promoter from a faster growing fish called an ocean pout. The additional active growth hormone allows for AquAdvantage salmon to grow faster, requiring less total feed and land usage. 

These positives shouldn’t imply that GMOs are without their issues, though. Due to the risk of crossbreeding with both wild and conventionally grown crops, the FDA has put large restrictions on the growing of genetically modified crops. In addition, due to the technological nature of these crops, they are eligible for patents. This means that biotechnology companies such as Monsanto are able to require very specific practices from farmers growing their crops. Farmers who choose to grow RR sugar beets are required by contract to remove any beets that flower. This can both reduce yield and increase costs for the farmer. Despite these restrictions on farmers, many farmers choose time and time again to grow genetically modified crops rather than conventional crops.

While there are valid reasons to be concerned about the biotechnological industry, most of the concerns raised about GMOs lack a scientific basis. Humans have been changing the genetic content of the plants and animals they cultivate since the beginning of agriculture. Every study on the nutritive quality of GMOs has shown that their nutritive value is well within the normal differences between different lines of traditionally grown crops. Ultimately, GMOs are a powerful tool to prevent food shortages.