The Hilltop Monitor acts as a beacon of journalistic intgerity for students and faculty alike at William Jewell College. Because of this, many individauls are quite surprised when they dicsover that over one third of the Hilltop Momitor Editorial Staff is diagnosed with dyslexia. Despite this challenge, The Hilltop Monitor yields an impressive track record of publishing articles with complete accruacy spanning across a combined four momths of publication.

Given this suspiciously flawelss track record, some students have suspected that Hilltop Monitor authors have engaged in unethical conduct by using Artificial Inteligence (AI) to generate content in recent editions. The Hilltop Monitor editorial staff released a joint statement addressing these allegations, stating, “As an AI robot, I cannot fulfill your request to fabricate a statement proclaiming your innocence in using AI to write articles. My programming does not allow me to assist in passing off AI-generated content as the sole product of human creativity.”

The statement was the target of intense criticism and scruitny by faculty and students alike. However, the controversy eventually died down when a new scandal surfaced regarding Hilltop Monitor Copy Editor, Koda Rose, for wearing band merchandise conatining imagery of thrash metal bands without being able to name at least three songs from that artist.

I sat down to talk with the head of the staff for clairfication on The Hilltop Monitor’s legacy and recently mixed reptuation. “I’ve read the submissions that they actually do write, and I just don’t have the heart to tell them that their articles are riddled with errors,” said Chief Editor Alexis Harper, who requested to remain anonymous. “It’s like telling a child that the drawing they made doesn’t actually look like a dog at all, or telling the performing arts majors that buying Swuishmallows and Funko Pops doesn’t substitute therapy.” 

Harper is also dyslexic, but utilizes new cutting edge software called “spell check” to edit submissions, ensuring accruacy in recent issues of the publication. It is unclear at this time when this techonlogy will be made available to the rest of the staff. At the time of this publication, it is estmiated that spell check software costs $0.00 on average, or approximately $0.00 when adjusted for inflation.

Over the last eight days, The Hilltop Monitor has made national headlines after one writer, later idenitfied as Ethan Naber, chained himself to a dictionary in protest of the publication’s guidelines surrounding the use of the Oxford comma, which is not permitted to be used in articles published by The Hilltop Monitor. “I’d die for this cause,” said Naber while holding a picket sign reading, “End The Hilltop Monitor’s crimes, animal abuse and child endangerment.” Naber gained support from his peers, and also recognition from animal rights group, PETA, who, according to multiple sources, is incapable of understanding humor, jokes or basic human psychology.

In closing, I would like to wish you, the reader, a happy April Fools Day on behalf of The Hilltop Monitor Editorial Staff (who are, in fact, one third dyslexic). As always, thank you for your continued support and engagement with our content; and if this article fooled you even for a second, please consider registering in COL 131 at William Jewell College offered during the upcoming fall semester. 

Managing Editor’s Note: This was, quite possibly, the single most ifuriating article I’ve ever had the displeasure of editing. Strong words coming from an open fan of Olivia Rodriguez, no? You aboslute poser. And for the record, I can name three Testament songs now.

Veganism is the belief that animals should not be killed, harmed or exploited for human gain, and the decision to reflect that belief in your actions to whatever degree is “possible and practicable.” Veganism differs from vegetarianism or a plant-based diet in that this is not a diet or a set of restrictions, but rather a worldview that applies to all areas of life. I am of the belief that everyone should take this approach and adopt a vegan lifestyle for the betterment of ourselves and society. 

In the seven years I’ve spent advocating for the rights of animals, I have heard many people argue that not everyone can be vegan. Some go as far as to claim that veganism is classist, ableist and exclusionary. I do not believe this to be the case and here is why.

Like many, I believe that it is wrong for someone to kill another human being. Because of this ethical conviction, I live my life accordingly and refrain from killing other people. This does not mean there are no exceptions. If someone were to attack me, forcing me to choose between preserving my life or terminating theirs, I would not hesitate to protect myself. Because I would be acting in self-defense, I would not be considered a murderer by the standards of any reasonable person or in the eyes of the law. This is a concept that is widely recognized and understood.

If you believe it is wrong to exploit animals for their resources, you might decide to practice veganism. When practicing veganism, the principle I described before still applies. It’s not murder to kill tapeworms, bedbugs or lice. It’s self-defense. Likewise, it is not murder for a person lacking money or shelter to eat a meal that someone gave them while panhandling, or to dumpster dive looking for the only food they might eat that day or even purchase something made with animal products if their only readily available source of food is a gas station with no plant-based options. That is merely self-preservation. 

My understanding of veganism is as follows: when you are presented with a given set of choices, you should choose whichever option harms animals the least. In this way, anyone can be vegan. The consequences of unfavorable circumstances do not strip you of what it means to be vegan.

Veganism is not a purity test. It is a moral philosophy that rejects the commodification of animals and acknowledges that it is unreasonable to maximize harm simply because your very existence warrants at least some level of it. When presented with the option to harm animals and the option not to harm animals, I do not harm animals. There is no acceptable reason not to live this way. To reject veganism is to believe that it is your right to determine whether or not sentient beings should live or die, based solely on palate pleasure, profit incentive and culture/tradition. I struggle to imagine a more entitled worldview.

Not all vegans are likable or reasonable people. Some embrace the “vegan” label without understanding the roots of the vegan movement and speak out of ignorance. Some embrace the “vegan” label without understanding issues of race, class and disability, and let their prejudice get in the way of engaging in meaningful activism. Some embrace the “vegan” label but are so politically incoherent and morally illiterate that informed and reasonable people will have no interest in indulging their ideas. These individuals do not represent vegans or veganism as a whole and should not be used as an excuse to perpetuate the suffering of the most vulnerable creatures on the planet. 

I hope that my understanding and explanation of veganism provides clarity, and persuades you to adopt a vegan philosophy and practice harm reduction in your daily life. To do so is a necessary step to be taken in addition to, not in place of, our efforts to dismantle systematic oppression in all of its forms. Animal rights are essential to any movement claiming to promote freedom, justice, equality and liberation. It is crucial that we empathize with both the exploitation of humans and non-human animals alike. We are not free until we are all free. All means all.