The return of Donald Trump to the White House after his victory in the 2024 Presidential election has altered nearly every aspect of American policy, and the world of higher education is in no way immune from these changes. Trump’s public fights with the Ivy League and other elite colleges have taken most of the media attention, but colleges across the nation have experienced their own share of changes, as have the students attending them. 

Admissions, Affirmative Action and International Students

Since his inauguration earlier this year, Trump has focused heavily on reforming a college system that his administration argues is financially bloated and biased against white applicants. Much of the administration’s reforms have focused on eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, particularly surrounding affirmative action, which was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2023. 

The administration argues that colleges have continued to apply affirmative action, primarily through proxy measures such as personal statements, in making acceptance decisions, and Trump has released a barrage of executive orders on that subject. Last month Trump signed a new order that forces colleges to share data about their applicant pools and acceptances, giving the Department of Education power to investigate these alleged proxies. 

The Department of Education, meanwhile, had threatened to cut federal funding to institutions that it claims engaged in race-based decision making, though these threats have been caught up in court. These latest orders follow an immediate effort within the opening days of the second Trump presidency to eliminate DEI resources and initiatives from the Department of Education’s website, as well as directing the various branches of government to identify and investigate colleges, corporations and foundations with DEI initiatives. 

The administration has also attempted to restrict international students, both in the numbers that can be admitted and in the length of time they can remain. Trump’s attacks against international students have so far targeted individual schools, such as his suspension of visas for students studying at Harvard or his requirement that Columbia “decrease financial dependence on international student enrollment”. However, the administration has begun to move from changing the rules for individual schools to changing the rules for all international students. 

One recent memo from the Department of Homeland Security proposes to restrict student visas to a duration of four years. At present, student visas have “duration of status,” which permits students to remain in the country while they continue to make progress towards a degree. Critics argue that restricting student visas to a four-year term will prevent international students from completing a bachelor’s degree program if they require time beyond the standard 4-year plan and will limit their ability to participate in doctoral programs that frequently last five years or more.

Student Loan Changes

While the Trump administration’s policy has influenced admissions policy and diversity initiatives across higher education,  changes to student loans and financial aid will most directly impact students. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) has implemented a series of restrictions on federal borrowing. Parent PLUS loans, which typically helped cover the gap between student loan limits and the rising cost of college, have been capped, maxing out at $20,000 annually and $65,000 total per student. When combined with the $7,500 annual limit for undergraduate federal loans, that limits families to $27,500 per year in federal loans. With the average annual cost of undergraduate education reaching $38,270, these federal loan caps will leave students with, on average, over 10 thousand dollars still to cover, either out of their own pockets, through scholarships or through the private loan market.

For those seeking a graduate education, the OBBBA has eliminated Graduate PLUS loans and added additional caps to federal borrowing. Graduate students are now only permitted to take out a maximum of $20,500 per year, while professional students (those in medical school, law school, and other similar programs providing training for a specific job) can take out a maximum of $50,000 per year. With the average annual tuition cost of medical school at $59,605 and the average tuition cost of a masters’ degree being $62,820 over two years, graduate students will likewise need to find approximately ten thousand dollars in additional funding to cover the cost of their degrees.

The OBBBA has also reduced the variety of loan repayment options. Previously, federal loans provided multiple income-driven repayment options to help lower-income students pay back their loans, and President Biden expanded that list by signing the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan into law last year. However, the OBBBA replaces these plans with the new Repayment Assistance Plan (RAP), which now becomes the only alternative to a standard fixed-payment plan. 

The RAP has a minimum monthly payment of $10 (SAVE had no minimum monthly payment), has a term length of 30 years (SAVE had a 20-year term, or 25 years for graduate loans) and begins counting its income percentage immediately (SAVE ignored the first $35,000 of income). This collectively means that a borrower making $40,000 annually would see their monthly payment increase from $40 under the SAVE plan to $132 under the new plan. RAP does, however, provide substantial discounts for those with dependent children, and is generally a less expensive plan for those with higher incomes.

In short, the OBBBA has reduced both the scale of federal loans and the variety of repayment plans that exist for both undergraduate and graduate education. In the immediate future, more students will have to seek alternate sources of funding, whether those be private loans or additional external financial aid/scholarships. The decline in international students, who typically pay higher tuition prices, will make the scholarship budgets even tighter at many institutions. It’s unclear just how many students will be forced to reconsider their educational plans because of these changes, but the tradeoffs of higher education will certainly become more relevant than ever in the coming years.

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.

Gone are the days when having a robot do your homework was something out of a science fiction novel. Whether you’re using ChatGPT, Google Bard or any other cutting-edge Artificial Intelligence (AI) tool, cheating your way through assignments has become easier and more tempting than ever before. With these technological advancements, teachers and students alike have been asking: What place should AI have in schools?

It’s important to note that AI is more than just an “essay-generator.” Text-to-speech programs utilize AI and websites like Quizlet have been creating AI to offer tailor-made questions based on the subject you are studying. Even common technology we take for granted, such as Google Translate and grammar and spell checkers, technically fall under the category of AI. 

Perhaps it’s time to shift our focus towards teaching students how to ethically and responsibly use the resources available to them. Instead of viewing AI as a threat, we can integrate it into the educational process as a tool for learning.

Schools have been coming up with ways to detect cheating, implementing programs like Turnitin. However, these programs are far from perfect. They have been known to produce false positives, and they don’t always detect when AI has been employed to complete assignments. It’s clear that a new approach is needed, one that allows us to harness the power of these technologies without compromising our core educational values.

Obviously, it’s important for students to be able to write an effective essay, but that doesn’t mean we have to cut out any help AI may be able to offer. Grammar and spell checkers, such as Grammarly, help students improve their writing by offering real-time suggestions for corrections and enhancements. AI can also provide inspiration by generating ideas, suggesting synonyms or helping rephrase sentences. They can even help with organization and structure, making sure your essays and reports follow a logical flow. 

As far as utilizing AI for research, it’s important to know that AI has been known to provide false information, so it’s crucial to ensure that the answers it gives are up-to-date and accurate. That being said, AI can serve as a valuable starting point or a helpful resource to check one’s understanding, similar to how we use Wikipedia today — as a place to begin our basic research, but not as the final source.

Perhaps most importantly, AI-powered tools are leveling the playing fields. Text-to-speech and speech-to-text applications help those with visual or hearing impairments access educational content. AI, such as Diffit.me, can analyze and adapt the complexity of written content to match the reading level of the intended audience. This means that a single piece of content, such as a news article or textbook, can be customized to suit various reading abilities — from elementary school students to advanced learners. This adaptability ensures that educational materials are accessible to a broader range of students, including those with varying reading proficiencies.

AI has the potential to revolutionize education by making it more inclusive, personalized and engaging. It’s not just about automating tasks. The real time, grammar and writing suggestions will become less necessary as students internalize the forms of good writing.  As AI advances it will continue to provide scaffolding for students to build better communication skills. AI will play an increasingly significant role in shaping the future of education, making it more accessible and effective for learners of all backgrounds and abilities.

Ultimately, AI’s role in education should be about enhancing the learning experience while instilling ethical values and skills in students, and this education should start now. We should be learning how to harness these skills responsibly, not fearing them.

In September 1917, the headline: “GIRLS! GIRLS! GIRLS! Our Time Has Come At Last and They Are Now About the Hill” appeared in Jewell’s then newspaper, “Student.” For the first time, women could attend William Jewell College. 

The all-male student body was, naturally, filled with excitement at such an announcement. But, this statement was only partially true. The ten young women that were enrolled in the college attended classes in an off-campus location known as “the Annex” that was chaperoned by Mrs. Swinney. It seemed that the Board of Trustees at the time was still dragging their feet in terms of creating a co-ed institution.

In 1919, however, after a compelling argument by Student that revealed to the Board of Trustees that women’s scholastic averages were higher than men’s, the college began to undertake efforts necessary for the accommodation of women on campus. 

On Dec. 9^th, 1920, the Board of Trustees voted to admit women on the same terms as men to Jewell. Funds were accrued for the construction of a dormitory hall for women by Jan. 1, 1925, and in the fall of 1926, Melrose Hall was open to the women of Jewell.

Here’s to the 100 (ish) years of the women of Jewell, who through their tireless efforts have made Jewell a radically improved and inclusive institution.

The first female graduate from William Jewell College was not one of the original 10 “Jewells,” as they were called. Leona Kresse graduated in 1920. She had earned credits at the Central Missouri State Teachers (now known as the University of Central Missouri) and therefore enrolled at Jewell with advanced standing. Kresse was also the first woman student assistant, and she taught algebra to the first-year class in her senior year. After graduation, Kresse became a teacher at Hardin High School and inspired a future Jewell professor who would gain national acclaim: Wallace A. Hilton.

Women came to play a larger role at Jewell as the years progressed. Mary Margaret Jesse was the first female editor of Student in 1924. In 1926, six women were on the debate team. In the 1920’s, various women’s organizations were created: Sigma Rho, the Young Women’s Association, Beta Lambda, and Panaegis. These organizations sought to elevate the status of the women of William Jewell College by creating opportunities wherein they could participate in church or mission work, social activities and biological studies.

Despite these organizations, the social lives of the women of William Jewell College were still strictly regulated. In the 1930’s, Melrose Hall had a series of regulations that read like something from a dystopian novel. Some notable examples taken from “Cardinal is Her Color” (1999), a book celebrating Jewell’s sesquicentennial, include: 

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday are study nights.  There will be no dating nor social functions in Melrose on these nights.

During the months of September and October, April and May, girls are privileged to walk after dinner, provided they are in Melrose by study hour— 7:30 p.m.

Girls are not permitted to leave town, go to nearby towns or cities for the day or part of the day, go out for meals, without permission.

Classes at Jewell, particularly those in the biology department, were segregated by gender. On the flipside, these women-only classes required a female teacher.  Thus, in the 1920’s and 30’s, women joined the faculty of Jewell.

In 1928, Mary Elmore was the first female faculty member. She was an assistant to her father, Dr J.C. Elmore, chairman of the biology department. Virginia D. Rice joined Jewell in 1928 after obtaining her master’s degree from the University of Kansas. In her 46 years of teaching at the college, Rice developed Jewell’s first theatre program.

The nursing department began in the 1970’s and originally had ten students and two instructors. By the mid-90’s, the program had flourished under the leadership of Dr. Jeanne Johnson and Dr. Ruth Edwards. Thanks to their efforts and those of other women, Jewell now boasts an accelerated track nursing program with a 100 percent employment rate within three months of graduation.

The female students of William Jewell brought great renown to the school as well. In the 1930’s, Audri Adams and Madeline Parrott, members of the debate club, traveled to 13 states and achieved numerous awards in debate and individual debates. They were interviewed by NBC in lieu of their success.

Finally, the impact of women on Jewell can also be seen in the physical buildings that still stand to this day. Opal Carlin was the college’s librarian for 35 years. She fought tirelessly for the creation of a new library building. Thus, her efforts culminated in the demolition of Carnegie Library and the transfer of 90,000 books to the newly built Curry Library in 1965. The creation of this library ended library segregation for women. Before women were relegated to studying on the balcony of Carnegie Library.

Dorothy Treux became the first female president of the William Jewell Alumni Association from 1971-1973. In 1977, Anita McPike became the second female president of the Alumni Association, and was later elected to serve as a member of the Board of Trustees for Jewell.

William Jewell College has come a long way from the days where “houseparents” would chide ladies into being “proper” –no bedroom slippers or hair curlers in the dining room, lights out at midnight every night! 

Through the efforts of generations of women, Jewell has become a university that advocates for radical inclusivity. Every individual, regardless of gender, race, or religion, is welcomed to Jewell’s community of scholars. The college has truly become a modern institution of higher learning, especially under the guidance of Dr. Elizabeth MacLeod Walls. Dr. Walls has rebranded the college as a critical thinking college in order to fully establish Jewell’s role as a community asset to Kansas City and Liberty and to sustain the college’s enrollment health.

Here’s to the woman of Jewell, past, present and future! May the spirit of progress that women so helped to cultivate be passed on to the current Jewell alumni and staff. Let us always seek to better the school and to become increasingly inclusive.