From May 2 to Sep. 26, 2023, the Writers’ Guild of America (WGA) successfully secured a tentative agreement with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) after 148 days on strike, allowing all writers to resume work.

WGA and AMPTP have negotiated a 94-page Minimum Basic Agreement (MBA) that will last for three years. Outlined in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) are payment increases, health contributions, improved terms and staffing minimums. 

The WGA has also secured protections against artificial intelligence (AI) in which AI cannot write or rewrite material, AI will not be considered a writer under the MBA and will not be credited as such, and AI usage cannot be required by companies. Companies must disclose to writers if given materials contain AI-generated content, and the exploitation of writers’ material to train AI is prohibited.

Similarly, from July 14 to Nov. 9, 2023, the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) have just recently struck a tentative agreement with the AMPTP after 118 days on strike.

SAG-AFTRA and AMPTP have negotiated a MOA with over 100 pages that will last for three years. Outlined in the MOA are payment increases, health contributions, protection against AI, equity and inclusion policies and sexual harassment policies. 

Compared to the WGA, the SAG-AFTRA protections against AI are seemingly more complex. Consent is required for the digital alteration of a performer in any form; however, some exceptions may be: (1) post-production editing for purposes of cosmetics, sound, timing, continuity, pitch, effects and filters, standards and practices, ratings, adjustment in dialogue or narration or other similar purposes; (2) audio dubbing or using a double if permitted under Codified Basic Agreement or Television Agreement; (3) facial or body adjusting, altering voice to a foreign language, or changing dialogue or imagery for licensing or selling.

Producers must notify and specify any nudity or sexual scenes that are expected of a performer before an audition or interview and no later than 48 hours in advance of call time. Producers are also encouraged to use an Intimacy Coordinator for nudity or simulated sex scenes and consider the use of an Intimacy Coordinator if requested by a performer for any scenes. All employees will be provided easy access to a company’s non-discrimination and anti-harassment policies.

Performers with disabilities can now request accessibility accommodations if the requests are reasonable. Protections for underage actors for auditions were also put in place. Producers may not request a performer of any age to appear nude or wear anything more revealing than a bathing suit appropriate for a public pool.

With many other policies put in place for income, benefits and such, the SAG-AFTRA and WGA have gained meaningful progress in the protections of their performers. This 3-year contract has sparked a new beginning for the writing and acting industry.

On Feb. 27, Rodney Smith, vice president for access and engagement and chair of the Racial Reconciliation Commission (RRC), led the RRC’s monthly meeting. This meeting was open to all members of the Jewell community. The objective of this meeting was to brief RRC members and other interested parties on the RRC’s progress in terms of its implementation of certain initiatives introduced on Nov. 10. Specifically, Smith discussed feedback provided by the faculty on these initiatives. The RRC has plans to meet with other groups to receive feedback, including Student Senate and the alumni of color advisory group. To date, the RRC has presented their initiatives to the administrative council, the alumni board of governors, and faculty council. 

Briefly, these initiatives are: 1) addressing historical inaccuracy; 2) commemoration; 3) repair and restoration and 4) creating a better future. The RRC’s implementation of these initiatives is guided by the following principles: 1) collaboration; 2) transparency; 3) continuous learning and 4) intentional representation.

RRC members in attendance included: Mark Mathes, an alumnus of William Jewell College; Cecilia Robinson, professor emerita of English and historian of Clay County African American Legacy, Inc.; Andrew Pratt, dean emeritus of the chapel; Robert Powers, electronic resources and archives librarian; David Sallee, former president of Jewell; Clark Morris, vice president for advancement and head of the Harriman-Jewell series; Keith Pence, member of the Board of Trustees; Carmaletta Williams, executive director of Mid-America Black Archives; Donna Gardner, professor emerita of education and Owen Kerrigan, freshman political science major. Kerrigan was announced as the newest member of the RRC at this meeting.

Members of the Jewell community present – apart from the Hilltop Monitor – were Rebecca Hamlett, director of library services and Traci Parker-Gray, director of diversity of equity, access and engagement. 

Two major recommendations made by faculty were discussed at the meeting. An additional consideration concerned renaming rooms is raised in conjunction with faculty’s first recommendation.

On faculty’s first recommendation
The first concerned the proposal to rename the RRC the “Katherine ‘Aunt Kitty’ Thompson Alexander Project.” Katherine Thompson Alexander was a Black woman who was employed as a cook by the William Jewell College Boarding Club for 25 years during the nineteenth century. Some faculty members proposed that the nickname ‘Aunt Kitty’ be removed from the consideration in the new name for the RRC, as terms of endearment and nicknames were often used by white people in power to infantilize or otherwise demean people of color under their employ.  This is because these terms of endearment or nicknames often reinforce negative racial stereotypes, such as the figure of the black mammy. 

The recommendation was discussed by RRC members. Robinson noted that Alexander seemed to embrace her role as ‘aunt’ at the College. Further, she argued that an instance where Alexander loaned 50 cents to a Jewell student indicated that she was economically independent and therefore less subject to infantilizing treatment. However, Pence noted that – whatever the connotations of the name ‘Aunt Kitty’ – the new name would be seen by members of the broader Kansas City and Liberty community. Most likely, these individuals will not know Alexander’s story. Without this important historical context, the name ‘Aunt Kitty’ by itself could reinforce negative racial stereotypes.

After this discussion, Smith concluded that ‘Aunt Kitty’ should be removed. Robinson asked whether the RRC members present would be voting on this decision. Smith asked the RRC members present whether a vote should be conducted, to which Powers responded by asking all commissioners in favor of changing the proposal to rename the RRC to raise their hands. Then the commission members clarified that they were voting to remove ‘aunt’ from ‘Aunt Kitty,’ though Smith stated that he would entertain a motion to remove ‘Aunt Kitty’ entirely from the renaming proposal. No such motion was started and the commission members voted unanimously to remove ‘aunt’ from the Katherine ‘Aunt Kitty’ Alexander Project. 

Smith then clarified that these initiatives were just recommendations, meaning that the vote did not officially change the RRC’s name until the Board of Trustees approved the recommendation. However, this spurred some discussion as to the exact role of the Board of Trustees in the RRC’s recommendations. Pence argued that the Board of Trustees had not named the RRC to begin with; whoever had originally come up with the name should decide whether or not to approve the recommendation to rename the RRC. Smith stated that the RRC’s name was decided by himself and Elizabeth Macleod Walls, president of the College. However, Smith reasserted that he was going to present all these recommendations to the Board of Trustees. 

An additional consideration: Who renames what?
Smith also noted that the original slide wherein recommendations under the heading of ‘Commemoration’ were listed had misspelled Audrey Burchette’s name. The RRC had recommended that the Alexander Doniphan room in Brown Hall be renamed in her honor in this slide.

There was some confusion, however, as to whether this recommendation had already been brought to the Board of Trustees. Afterall, in official communications such as the View From the Hill, the room is referred to as the Audrey Burchette room. However, Smith stated this had been done only unofficially; that is to say, the room had been referred to as the Audrey Burchette room only in verbal, not written communications. According to Smith, this recommendation had to be presented to the Board before it was made official.

However, Pence stated that it was his belief that the Board does not get involved in the process of renaming rooms, as this was an operational affair outside of the Board’s scope. The Board’s task is to set direction. Instead, he suggested that whatever part of the College applies names to rooms would be the group to receive the recommendation. 

Mathes disagreed with Pence. He asserted that it was “critically important, even if the Board of Trustees does not see naming rooms as part of what they do, [that] the Board of Trustees has to stand up and say we recognize all of this and put it on a vote.” Mathes underscored the importance of ownership: the outcome of the vote and who voted for and against what should be made public. 

In an attempt to sort out these confusions, Morris recommended that Macleod Walls and the Board of Trustees should ‘ferry out’ who should have what responsibilities in connection with the RRC’s initiatives and recommendations. In his mind, he believed that all these recommendations should be presented to Macleod Walls, who would then decide which of these recommendations should be voted on by the Board. 

Further, Pratt reminded the other commission members that the purpose of this meeting was for Smith to brief those present on faculty feedback to the RRC. He stated that he “had not come prepared to vote on every recommendation,” although he thought this was a good idea. Pratt added that votes should be scheduled to give commission members time to prepare. 

Gardner agreed with Pratt in terms of the importance of voting and also hearing feedback from various groups. However, she urged that it was crucial that the RRC vote “in the most timely fashion possible.” Further, the RRC should clarify the process by which these votes occur. This includes clarifying who approves what recommendations and how. 

On the Faculty’s Second Recommendation
Gardner’s comments put the commission in a position to discuss the faculty’s second major recommendation to the RRC: the importance of a transparent, formal decision-making procedure. 

Kerrigan suggested the following structure for the implementation of the RRC’s recommendations and initiatives. First, feedback should be gathered from as many relevant groups as possible. Then the commissioners would vote on issues as they arose from the feedback. A list of recommendations would be compiled from these votes, which would then be presented to Macleod Walls. Macleod Walls would then decide which recommendations required Board approval and which did not. Smith approved this structure. 

This spurred a discussion as to what groups should be asked to provide feedback and how. Kerrigan noted that Student Senate has plans to have a town hall on the RRC’s initiatives – this would give the general student body an opportunity to provide feedback to the RRC. Kerrigan was unsure of the timeline of this town hall at the time of the meeting, though he promised to talk to the relevant parties to ascertain this information. 

Robinson then listed the recommendations which required feedback and subsequent approval from Macleod Walls: 1) the RRC’s statement of purpose must be approved; 2) the proposal to rename the RRC; 3) the proposal to rename the Doniphan room; 4) the proposal to rename Jewell Hall and 5) the proposal to develop a Freedom Walk on the Quad. Robinson, alongside Parker-Gray, underscored the importance of giving Black Student Alliance (BSA) the opportunity to give feedback on these recommendations. 

Smith noted that, because the Board of Trustees meets just three times a year, it would be difficult to have a completed list of recommendations by the time the Board meets again. Thus, it would likely be the case that this process of getting feedback, voting, and then getting Board approval would have to wait to be completed until the Board’s October meeting. 

Hamlett then returned the conversation to faculty’s feedback concerning the RRC’s procedures. Hamlett stated that faculty wanted to understand how feedback would be gathered and synthesized and, finally, how this feedback would be presented to the administration. Hamlett asked whether it might be possible for the RRC’s presentation, first shown on Nov. 10, to be publicized so that the faculty could have the opportunity to provide ample, carefully considered feedback. 

Powers added that faculty cited that faculty groups have particular by-laws that govern their operations. The faculty wanted to know whether the RRC has any such by-laws, how votes are conducted, whether there are minutes for the RRC’s meetings and how these are published, and other such procedural matters. In response, Mathes asked whether faculty “understand that this isn’t a faculty meeting or commission, and what comes out of it is more important than the governance of a committee.” 

Pratt concurred with Mathes, stating that “faculty committees are standing committees that continue their work year after year, with different people rotating on and off the committees. And so it’s for continuity’s sake… [thus] it’s more important in those cases to have established procedures, so that the committee can continue to function… There’s never been a Racial Reconciliation Commission before and it may be that the Racial Reconciliation Commission persists once this first round of work is done, then I think it will be important to do those things. But in a sense, I think that it’s not applicable: those types of comments are not applicable to this kind of commission, although… it’s important to have the votes and the records and be transparent.”

Smith ended by stating that he is willing to post the RRC’s materials online, as well as the RRC’s meeting minutes, and calendar dates for meetings with stakeholder groups. The Hilltop Monitor will continue reporting on the RRC’s progress with respect to its initiatives and recommendations. 

oSTEM at William Jewell College is a student-led organization intent on supporting and providing resources for STEM-orientated LGBTQIA+ students.

oSTEM, an abbreviated term for Out in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, is an internationally recognized nonprofit association with over 100 affiliated college and university chapters. The association –founded in 2009 as the first society to specifically support LGBTQIA+ STEM students — hosts national and regional conferences to bring awareness to diversity in science while also funding scholarships and mentorship programs for members.

oSTEM at Jewell was previously inactive due to changes in campus community and culture; however, the organization was reactivated mid-semester as interest regenerated.

Liz Payton, acting president for oSTEM and biochemistry major, said that she saw oSTEM at Jewell as an opportunity where she could navigate her own identity and also support others with similar insecurities about pursuing fields that are historically known to lack diversity.

After student leaders from several other inclusion-focused groups encouraged her to restart the organization in late January, Payton and her friend created an oSTEM Instagram account. By mid-February, Student Life took notice of the new Instagram page and reached out to begin the process of officially reinstating oSTEM at Jewell.

Specific to oSTEM and its mission, Payton explained the ways in which false biological sciences have been used to shut down conversations pertaining to sexual orientation and gender identity.

“There is no disputing that science and related fields have been used as a tool to harm minority communities and push a narrative of superiority and power in the past,” Payton said. “Despite the progress we have made away from this power dynamic, we are still seeing a lack of diversity in STEM.”

Taking advice from Dr. Rodney Smith, vice president of access and engagement, oSTEM at Jewell said a large part of their purpose is in inspiring future generations by laying the groundwork for inclusion in the present.

With LGBTQIA+ identities still underrepresented in occupational fields, oSTEM at Jewell hopes to look into reducing barriers for students who plan to attend graduate school or otherwise work in STEM-related careers.

“We are wanting to look at ways to reduce barriers for students as they move towards STEM careers or graduate school, and that would include skill-building workshops such as how to make a good STEM resume or ways to work on social confidence and presentation skill,” Payton said. “In this initiative, we will also help students look for potential research opportunities and other ways to increase their technical skills.”

oSTEM at Jewell further plans to eventually tackle issues like workplace stigma or hostility. Payton notes, however, that outside experts will need to lead the conversation on such serious topics.

“The overarching theme here is really just education and support,” Payton said. “We want students to know that they are valid in their own identities and [that] they belong in the STEM community and we want to provide some pathways [to help students] reach acceptance of themselves.” 

While oSTEM at Jewell is primarily an organization focused on the LGBTQIA+ STEM community, the club welcomes non-STEM majors as well. According to the organization’s current guidelines, non-STEM majors cannot be considered official members, but they are nonetheless welcomed at meetings to support friends or contribute to the conversation.

Rose Reynolds, associate professor and chair of biology, is the faculty sponsor for oSTEM at Jewell. Reynolds also sponsored the previous chapter of oSTEM several years ago.

A temporary cabinet will serve for the remainder of this semester and will be responsible for structuring the club and facilitating the upcoming elections of the permanent cabinet. The organization plans to elect an official cabinet for the 2021-22 academic year after becoming more established and stable.

“We want the process to be as transparent and democratic as possible so we felt that immediately asking oSTEM members to vote for a permanent cabinet would be unfair, especially as we are still trying to recruit members,” Payton said. 

As the organization is still trying to cultivate interest among the Jewell community, the temporary cabinet is not operating under harshly defined roles yet. Instead, each member is working together to meet the immediate needs of the organization. Once the permanent cabinet is elected, the stipulated cabinet roles as set aside in oSTEM’s constitution will become the guiding practice for the cabinet members. 

These roles include President, Director of Finances and Director of Membership. Though not decided upon yet, the cabinet is discussing adding the specific role of a Director of Marketing or Public Relations. 

However, Payton said that part of denoting the responsibilities of the cabinet positions will depend on the actual implementation of leadership and the personalities behind them.

“It is a fluid process with a lot of learning involved, so I think it would be wrong to rigidly fixate upon the roles indefinitely,” Payton said. “We trust that the previous oSTEM group worked out an efficient way to handle the logistics of the organization, and we decided to keep their leadership structure and just build upon it as needed.”

The emphasis on fluidity and reflection is especially important given the difficult conditions of restarting a club during a pandemic wherein oSTEM at Jewell is rendered unable to effectively host recruiting events under Operation Safe Campus. Payton said that the club will take a risk-benefit assessment approach in hosting meetings next fall.

“With such serious topics like gender and sexual identity, it can be difficult for people to express themselves in front of others,” Payton said. “On top of that, expressing themselves in a Zoom call may be even harder. Face-to-face meetings seem to be the more comfortable option to engage in such dialogue, but we also want to ensure that students are physically safe during the pandemic.” 

Potentially interested students can follow the club on Instagram (@jewell_ostem). More information about oSTEM chapters can be found on oSTEM’s official site.