Throughout the coronavirus pandemic, William Jewell College has extended student support services in order to promote student welfare during this time. Among these resources include expansion of Student Life support, financial aid policies and academic policies.

According to an email from the Student Life office, Jewell has taken services for academic support, counseling services, health services and career development and internships online. Student Life has also sought to host online programs and activities for the remainder of the semester. 

Office of Counseling Services:

The Office of Counseling Services has taken support online. Students can access tele-mental health services and find what services may be available to them by contacting Dr. Tricia Hager, director of counseling services.

On Mondays and Thursdays from 3-4 p.m., counseling services hosts “Let’s Talk Support Group” with Hager on Zoom. 

Student Life:

Student Life has been providing strategies, tips and opportunities for connection during the pandemic. One of these opportunities is taking Friday Jewell Time online so students can meet with Student Life staffers via Zoom. Student Life is hosting yoga with Kathy Benavidez Thursday nights from 8:15-9 p.m. on Zoom. More information can be found by contacting Student Life and sessions can be joined via this link.

Shelly King, dean of students, said Student Life has gotten positive feedback from students about the continued availability of resources. King also commented on Student Life’s priorities during this time. 

“[Student Life is continuing] to be available and accessible to students during this challenging time,” King said.  “Students used to stop by our office to meet in person so we started a Student Life Jewell Time on Fridays at 10:15.  We had our first one this past Friday and had five students participate.  We’ve had other students ask if it will be continued because they want to participate next time. Zoom has worked great to stay connected and to actually see students during some sessions.” 

Student Health Center:

The Student Health Center is offering tele-health services from Jewell’s nurse practitioner, Paula Brown. The center is open 8 a.m.-12 p.m. Students can call 816-415-5020 or email Brown to schedule appointments. Full time undergraduate students can have tele-health visits for no charge and postgraduates will be charged $15 per visit. 

Students should include a phone number when scheduling appointments – and students will be texted to start appointments. All visits should take place on phones, laptops or computers with camera capabilities. 

Brown is also keeping the Jewell community updated with a Student Health Center blog. Check back at the blog for weekly updates about health and wellness.

Financial Aid:

Financial aid suspended its normal refund policy and will provide refunds for unused room and board costs. Students will be refunded approximately $2,400 for eight weeks worth of room and board fees. Graduating seniors will be refunded via check, and continuing students will have the refunded money credited to their fall semester 2020 tuition and fees. Continuing students may request the refund in the form of a check. For students with an outstanding balance, the refund will go toward that balance, with the remainder being credited to fall semester tuition – or in the form of a refund check. Jewell aimed to distribute checks by April 17.

The College also significantly increased the price threshold for course registration. Now students with an account balance up to $2,500 can register for courses in the fall. Students with an account balance greater than $2,500 were encouraged to contact the financial aid department for assistance with registration.

Students with work-study positions will also continue to receive payments throughout the semester. Students will be paid according to how much they work in a typical week. Work-study students were advised to get in contact with the business office to avoid any disruption in payment. Students with workship positions are not eligible for continued payment but can continue working remotely if possible.

Academic and Tutoring Resources:

Academic resources have taken tutoring services online. Students can find more information about academic resources like tutoring and other academic support at the Academic Achievement Center Moodle course. All tutoring appointments will be online, and more support can be found from Pharamond Guice, director of the Academic Achievement Center.

By keeping tutoring services running, the Academic Achievement Center is both providing free support to students who may be struggling with the move to online courses and is providing support to students with tutoring positions – who can continue earning money despite being off-campus. 

Career Development & Internships

Career Development and Internships is providing assistance and support of career-related needs. All remaining career development events will be held virtually – more information can be found at legacy.jewell.edu/career-development. Marissa Bland, director of Career Development and Internships, can also be contacted for more information about career development and internships. 

Trump’s executive order upholds the ACA but calls federal agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services to interpret Obamacare’s stipulations as loosely as possible. Agencies are to “waive, defer, grant exemptions from or delay implementation of any [ACA] provision or requirement,” according to the order.

According to a 2015 Gallup poll, Obama earned an 80 percent approval rating among members of his own party compared to a 14 percent approval rating among Republicans. Similarly, the ACA was supported by most Democrat congressmen and women; yet, the piece of legislation failed to receive a single Republican vote. Today, Republicans call Obamacare a failure and claim to be ready to replace the act with a superior alternative. Though the Republican’s plan has yet to be clearly articulated, based on their ongoing complaints of the legislation, several themes and possible policy routes have emerged.

In an attempt to implement universal insurance coverage, the Democrat’s plan was three-fold: regulate, mandate, subsidize. The ACA regulates insurance companies’ right to deny coverage to individuals with preexisting conditions, mandates that all individuals purchase insurance or incur a penalty and implements subsidies for these required insurance plans for those who can’t afford to pay. Many Republicans protest that the individual mandate should be repealed because it is an example of a big, intrusive federal government. Proponents of the ACA argue that without the requirement to purchase insurance, adverse selection prevails. This means that individuals with preexisting conditions will be more likely to purchase insurance while healthy individuals will be less likely to purchase a product they regard unnecessary. Subsequently, insurance companies raise premiums to cover their costs since more sick people are taking money out of the insurance pool than healthy people are contributing. Barring discrimination based on preexisting ailments, which conservatives largely support, becomes less relevant when these same individuals have to pay more for their insurance service.

Republicans also object to the federal subsidies for the ACA that largely fall on individuals from top income brackets. Instead of sending taxes to the overbearing federal government, there are conjectures that an Obamacare replacement will include a conversion of Medicaid into block grants, giving more autonomy to individuals and states to provide medical services. For instance, repealing the ACA would result in an average tax cut of 32,820 dollars for the top one percent of Americans. Republicans such as Tennessee State Representative Geoff Duncan plan to supplement these tax breaks with tax credits for what he deems the “four big C’s”—corporations, churches, charities and citizens—when they make donations to qualified rural hospitals. As for Medicaid reform, the ACA expands Medicaid funds that states can choose to accept or deny. Republicans claim that allocating identical fixed sums of money to each state will make states less dependent on the federal government and more able to serve the people who are closest to them. Block grants would make states more flexible and capable of creating “innovative Medicaid programs that will better serve their low-income citizens,” says Trump. However, Democrats decry rolling back ACA’s expansion of Medicaid funds and any transition away from Medicaid as an open-ended entitlement. Block grants would not require states to spend money on vulnerable populations and would force states to either find alternate sources of financing or cut medical services for those most in need.

However, until recent polls most Americans opposed the ACA. CNN’s new poll this month shows that only 22 percent of those polled saw their lives improved because of the ACA. A mere 14 percent of respondents declared health care as the most important affair facing the U.S. Yet, the ACA has helped insure 20 million Americans, and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that an Obamacare overhaul could cause 18 million of these Americans to lose their insurance in 2017 alone.

Any substantive changes to the ACA will require congressional action. However, Trump’s first executive order has already spurred uncertainty in the insurance market in which federal agencies, states, average citizens and insurance providers now must operate.

For instance, we could look at the Affordable Care Act, the centerpiece of President Obama’s presidency and the point of greatest contention. It is a fact that millions of Americans rely on the ACA for health insurance. Admittedly, despite political affiliations, that alone is commendable legacy. Furthermore, such a legacy is truly apolitical, as many Republicans rely on Obama’s healthcare policy.

Although providing health coverage to millions of previously uninsured Americans is an amazing political feat in its own right, I felt as though this did not go quite far enough to emphasize President Obama’s legacy. Upon further reflection, I feel as though his legacy is that he genuinely cared about utilizing government programming to improve the lives of Americans.

This seems like a fairly low bar to set for a president, but my standards for how our chief executive should behave are steadily falling. Even the most basic demonstrations of decency, such as waiting for Melania Trump before walking into a building, are cherished and, to a certain extent, over-exaggerated.

But more to the point, it’s a rather depressing notion to question whether those who work in our government are actually interested in using government policy and resources to improve the lives of Americans. Such is the way that 2016—and the first part of 2017—has gone.

I admit I’m coming from a pointedly, if not liberal,  anti-conservative, perspective. Avoiding such biases I’m sure will be futile. But let’s attempt to work through this apolitically, if possible.

Why is the ACA, which has given millions of uninsured Americans access to previously inaccessible health coverage, even debated? Now, I can certainly buy the idea that aspects of the ACA are undesirable, but to advocate for a complete repeal seems irresponsible and dangerous. To advocate for a complete repeal of a policy that provides a life or death service to millions of people is in opposition to using our government’s resources to improve the lives of Americans.

Another example: President Obama was an outspoken proponent of environmental concerns and scientific studies (he himself published scientific essays). Drawing attention to climate change, something that poses a daunting threat to the continued safety of not just Americans, but our entire species, certainly would fall in line with using the office of the Presidency and its resources to improve the lives of Americans.

Following this logic, ignoring climate change, or further, opposing efforts to curb it (look: here, here and here, just for starters), would definitively and inarguably be against the best interest of Americans.

Here is the crux of what I think President Obama’s legacy is: although there is no such thing as a perfect president, and Obama is no exception, it is undeniable that he used the Executive Office in ways that objectively improved—or, if that is unacceptable, were intended to improve—the lives of Americans. This most basic of functions, that a president is obligated to serve the American people, is under threat. This is not a politicized assessment of President Trump’s intentions, but a calculated analysis.

Actively working against efforts to correct climate change and advocating for a repeal of a policy that provides millions of underserved people with health coverage is not an alternative fact, but the cold and hard reality of what is at stake during a Trump presidency.

President Obama’s legacy may not be great, but it was good.