On October 16th, Boy Throb, a newly social media famous boy band, celebrated Darshan Day – the day their fourth member, Darshan Magdum, publicly performed with his bandmates Anthony Key, Evan Papier and Zachary Sobania after a long battle with the US immigration system. Key and Papier met after both unsuccessfully auditioned for American Idol, then got to know Magdum online and found a bass singer in Sobania. However, as the group started to produce music, they had a problem – Darshan was “stuck in India” without a US Visa. So Darshan filed an “O-1 US visa which is reserved for individuals with ‘extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics.’” 

In October of 2025, the band began creating parodies of popular songs to explain Darshan’s situation in an attempt to gain 1 million followers, which they believed would accentuate the O-1 Visa application. My favorite is their version of “Mambo No. 5,” which they sing in a TikTok video with the words, “A little bit of paperwork ‘bout Darshan, little background check prove nothing’s wrong, letters of endorsement from top brass, little proof of income adds some gas.” However, despite Darshan’s undeniable talent, he received an RFE (Request for Evidence) from the US government, causing a delay in the application as Darshan was required to go through more steps to prove that the request for an O-1 Visa was valid. 

Another challenge that Boy Throb faced while trying to unite the band in the US was skepticism from fans and haters about the legitimacy of the band. Due to the multiple parody songs released, the fun, bubble pop feel of their songs, and the band’s commitment to often adding Darshan in their media and music videos via greenscreen or photoshop overlay, some even wondered if the entire musical phenomenon was an elaborate bit by docu-reality comedian Nathan Fields. However, Boy Throb called out social media messages asking if the band was satirical, responding that they were a serious band and doubling down by selling “Not Satire” and “Boy Throb is Real” T-shirts in their online merch store. They also put on a sold-out IRL concert called Throbchella in May of 2026. Continuing the momentum by collaborating with big artists like Kesha and singing the national anthem at an LA ice hockey game, as well as keeping up social media videos and releasing more parodies as well as original songs, Boy Throb was finally able to prove Darshan’s talent, and he publicly announced that he had received a US Visa early this August.

Given the increasing difficulty immigrants may experience with attaining visas during Trump’s current presidency, it’s not surprising that the number of skilled people emigrating to the US is dropping. Darshan’s fight was an underdog situation, and while Boy Throb beat the odds and are finally united in America, many talented immigrants have not had the same luck. And it’s not just a question of effort and skill – US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has received over $7 billion in immigration fees according to 2023 and 2024 statistics (due to lack of publication by the current administration). While Darshan’s victory is well worth celebrating, we cannot assume that victory over the immigration system after completing all official requirements is the norm. Boy Throb and Darshan are the exception to the rule – in most cases, the US immigration system is nearly impossible to navigate and no longer welcomes emigrating individuals with open arms, inviting them to partake in the American Dream. Boy Throb is “4gether, 4ever” now, but sadly, not everyone gets to be.

Artificial intelligence is going to kill us all. At least, Dario Amodei thinks it might. Amodei is the CEO and co-founder of Anthropic, which was founded in 2021 and launched Claude, an closed-source A.I. agent, in 2023. The company is currently preparing to make an initial public offering (IPO), meaning that they are going to sell shares of their stock to the general public. While the date for the IPO has not yet been announced, the IPO prospectus, a formal legal document companies are required to file before going public, was leaked to Reuters. In the document, Dario Amodei states that A.I. models may present an “existential risk to humanity.”

Since its origination, Amodei and Anthropic have been advocates for greater regulation and caution in regards to developing A.I. In 2025, Amodei sat for an interview with John Collison where he said, 

“I started a company not because I was initially excited about selling things or business or any of that; I’d seen the way that some of the other companies had run and the magnitude and gravity of what they were trying to build, and I was just a bit concerned that the people and the motivations were maybe not the best ones, and you know, I knew that there would be a number of players in this space, but it felt like having at least one player that kind of had a strong compass in how we do things could have positive effects on the ecosystem. We would build things in a different way, we would deploy them in a different way, and above all, we would have a, again sometimes short, list of principles, but we would stick to them as well as we could.” 

When Collison asked Amodei about the potential risks of A.I., Amodei stated, “Some of the dangers of A.I. have the potential to significantly destabilize society or threaten humanity or civilization, and so, I think we don’t want to take idle chances with that level of risk.” Despite this, Amodei expressed that he doesn’t believe that A.I. development should be stopped or slowed, saying “It’s just not possible; we have geopolitical adversaries. They’re not going to not make the technology… I mean, if you even propose even the slightest amount of regulation– I have [proposed regulation], and… I have many trillions of dollars of capital lined up against me [from people] for whom that’s not in their interest.” 

Anthropic has also been transparent in the past about undesirable behavior from their A.I. models. In 2025, they admitted that a model they were testing exhibited behavior akin to blackmail. In an essay penned for the New York Times, Dario Aomdei wrote, 

“Picture this: You give a bot notice that you’ll shut it down soon, and replace it with a different artificial intelligence system. In the past, you gave it access to your emails. In some of them, you alluded to the fact that you’ve been having an affair. The bot threatens you, telling you that if the shutdown plans aren’t changed, it will forward the emails to your wife.  This scenario isn’t fiction. Anthropic’s latest A.I. model demonstrated just a few weeks ago that it was capable of this kind of behavior.  Despite some misleading headlines, the model didn’t do this in the real world. Its behavior was part of an evaluation where we deliberately put it in an extreme experimental situation to observe its responses and get early warnings about the risks, much like an airplane manufacturer might test a plane’s performance in a wind tunnel.” 

In the same essay, Amodei also claimed that Anthropic was not the only A.I. developer experiencing these kinds of risks, and he noted that OpenAI, the company that created ChatGPT, tested a model that “at times wrote special code to stop itself from being shut down.” 

Despite the mounting concerns over the safety of the artificial intelligence models currently in development, United States President Donald Trump recently opted not to construct any federal regulations on A.I. expansion after a meeting with leading developers of A.I. on Sept. 29. President Trump previously posted about A.I. regulation on Truth Social, writing, “The only control or ‘guardrails’ that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT, and the U.S.A. has that, in spades!” When a reporter asked him if anything from the Sept. 29 meeting had changed his opinion on the necessity of guardrails for A.I., President Trump claimed that he is “seeing tremendous self-policing, and they understand that they have to self-police.” Consequently, the CEOs signed an accord wherein they agreed to perform internal and external reviews of their technology. When asked if the accord was binding in any way, President Trump responded, “I think it’s morally binding, yeah.” Moving forward, artificial intelligence will remain unregulated on a national level, and any external regulation will now have to come at a state level.

The William Jewell Choir Department will present four unique concerts for the Fall 2026 semester. The choral department is comprised of three ensembles directed by Dr. Lawrence Abernathy, Interim Director of Choral Studies, and in collaboration with Dr. Jessica Koebbe, Director of Keyboard Studies. 

The first performance will be Concert Choir’s presentation of “Jepthe,” an Oratorio written in the mid 17th Century by Italian composer Giacomo Carissimi. The concert will consist of this oratorio as well as other shorter period works. This Concert Choir performance will take place the evening of October 30th in Gano Chapel. The next performance, on November 14th, is the Choral Scholars’ concert entitled “Jewell Tones.” This concert will present various arrangements and staples of vocal jazz. The concert will be in collaboration with various instrumentalists, and includes an arrangement written by Prince Russel-Johnson, one of the Choral Scholars. The week following, on November 18th in Gano Chapel, will be the Cardinal Voices Fall Choral Concert. The concert will explore music from the American Gospel tradition, including Robert Ray’s “Gospel Mass,” composed in 1979. Lastly, Concert Choir will continue the annual tradition of performing at The City Come Again, held on December 14th at Grace and Holy Trinity Cathedral in Kansas City. Be sure to look out for more information on these four upcoming performances from the William Jewell Choirs—these are not performances to miss!

In an email announcement to Jewell students on August 13th titled “William Jewell College: Educational Excellence, Institutional Stability and Your Future,” the Board of Trustees announced William Jewell College’s exit from financial exigency as well as detailing other college-wide updates. In two sections of the email, AI updates were briefly mentioned. One section, entitled “Your Educational Experience and Excellence Standards,” announced that students’ educational excellence will be enhanced by “AI-powered early warning systems to identify and support struggling students.” A second section, “What All of This Means for Students,” stated that students’ “degree[s] represent … new operational efficiencies through AI and expanding AI in the classroom.” I had questions about the specifics of these updates, so I spoke with Dr. Kelli Braitman, Jewell’s Vice President of Academic Affairs, and Dr. Tara Allen, professor of biology and cochair of the newly appointed AI Task Force at Jewell. Both interviews were conducted based mainly on the second statement regarding AI efficiencies and expanding AI in the classroom. Here’s what I found out.

The following material is entirely composed of information gathered during the two interviews conducted and does not necessarily reflect the author’s belief or opinion. All material not directly quoted has been summarized directly from interview transcripts and notes.

When I asked about the specific implications of this email concerning AI at Jewell, Braitman replied that “one of the areas that we’ve started exploring [the use of AI] is in room scheduling.” Currently, the director of teaching and technologies runs room scheduling through a system called RoomKey. This site is simply a formstack in which requests have to be manually processed. Jewell is now exploring AI tools to “[book] the rooms automatically without him having to do something;” the AI system would be “the same formstack, but … automated,” intended to function as a time saver. “The other thing that we’re doing,” Braitman said, “is we’ve put together a task force … funded by our grant [Department of Education Title III Strengthening Institutional Programs (SIP) Grant – $1.99 million over 5 years] … to start looking at whether there are ways that we can embed AI tutoring within our Brightspace courses.” This AI tutoring resource, as currently imagined, would be overseen by the individual course instructor and would ideally enhance rather than hinder student learning. It would allow for 24/7 tutoring “with the instructor’s materials … like their PowerPoint slide, lecture notes, assignments,” etc. Braitman stated that the task force is still exploring what kind of AI model would be used, but confirmed that they are currently planning to use a model that would be exposed only to information already found within Brightspace. She also noted that the task force is  “looking at whether we want to add something in the curriculum that would help students learn ethical uses of AI.”

Although the email received by Jewell students mentioned an expansion of “AI in the classroom,” Dr. Braitman clarified that Jewell admin has “not planned anything specific for in the classroom. … We’re not bringing in AI bots to teach,” and that Jewell is still simply exploring options at this time. “What we are hearing from employers,” Braitman said, “is that they expect graduates … to know how to use AI. We don’t know what that means for what we need to do at Jewell. But we want students to be prepared, in a way, to know how to use AI responsibly and ethically and effectively.” Jewell has recently developed an AI policy which prohibits personally identifiable information from being shared and a baseline syllabus template which states that AI programs should not be used by students to “counterfeit” assignments, although instructors can include additional stipulations or allowances for AI depending on the class. When asked whether she foresaw any changes to the AI honor code policy, Braitman said, “You know, we’re so early in AI that I really anticipate that our honor code policy could evolve over time as we better understand how we should and shouldn’t be using it. I could see it changing.”

My next questions for Braitman involved the decision-making process. While noting that Jewell is still in the exploratory phase, Dr. Braitman did confirm that faculty, staff, and student feedback will be involved. “One of the things they’ve talked about doing,” she said, “is piloting [AI embedded tutoring] in a class or two with some certain instructors. And I think that the students in that class would be providing feedback.”

Dr. Braitman also stated that the reasoning behind this AI initiative is rooted in an intention to improve student success. She told me about the early alert system, explaining how it could be useful to identify struggling students and narrow down possible causes for their difficulties so that those could be addressed more promptly and easily. She also noted other new improvements geared towards student success, such as hiring an academic success coach, implementing a cardinal care network and increasing the stipend to student tutors. “Part of what we’re doing in college,” she stated, “is helping our students grow in different ways to become ethical and responsible citizens. And part of that is exploring how we use AI in the right ways.” Dr. Braitman said she understands that students might have concerns regarding AI usage, particularly environmental concerns, and for this reason the task force is currently planning to make this potential AI tutor opt-in only, not only for students, but also for instructors.

Next, I interviewed Dr. Tara Allen, whom Dr. Braitman recommended to me as a good next contact since Dr. Allen is currently serving as cochair of Jewell’s newly established AI Task Force. According to Allen, the task force was formed over the summer as the result of an email that went out asking for faculty volunteers who would be interested in the project. The task force consists of Allen, professors in the nursing, engineering, and business departments, and a supervisor who works in Brightspace and IT. The purpose of the task force is to learn more about possible AI tutoring resources to augment and enhance student learning. The group has begun to meet with AI companies to see what products are available, evaluate different platforms and assess the options, with a goal to survey students anonymously about AI usage this fall. Depending on the results of the survey and further information from the AI companies, the task force plans to pilot an AI learning tool next spring in some courses for which instructors individually opt in. 

I asked Dr. Allen some questions about the specific kinds of AI models that are being considered, and she confirmed that these models certainly would not pull information from the internet, only having access to materials uploaded to Brightspace by faculty. Models currently under consideration would also not be trained or educated by student or faculty input – the AI bot would be self-contained and direct students to course resources as opposed to being able to actually answer student questions.

The AI Task Force, according to Allen, certainly has reservations about AI and is aware that it can compromise intellectual growth in some circumstances. They are looking into whether a class or seminar about AI would help students learn to use AI effectively and ethically while continuing to think critically. The task force is aware that AI models frequently hallucinate inaccurate responses, so AI will only be used if it augments learning and after more information has been gathered from students, faculty and the AI companies.

This story is developing. Keep reading The Hilltop Monitor for potential updates!