OSC includes a five-level threat assessment – including operational levels 0, A, B, C and D, a comparison with Clay County phases, intended response and examples of risk mitigation for each level. As of May 29, the College is at Threat Level C. They anticipate returning to Level B soon and remaining in Level B into the fall semester.

“The College’s goal is to open in August for an engaged, successful and campus-based 2020-2021 Academic Year. The following guidance promotes a safe environment in June and July as we prepare to welcome faculty, staff and students back to a safe and healthy campus in August. The Operational Planning Team is establishing the policies and a framework to reopen and sustain the campus, and is approaching this work consistent with our identity as The Critical Thinking College®,” the email announcement stated.

Threat Levels

Returning to Campus Directives

The College remained closed through June 1 for most operational activity. Until that day, employees were directed not to be on campus unless their work required them to do so. 

The department of nursing introduced a cohort of accelerated track students to campus May 18. All summer courses are virtual. Simulations and labs will continue to occur on campus in strictly monitored environments. Grant-funded, campus-based research will also begin in the summer. Research – requiring only a few people – will take place in the biology and physics departments. 

Before June 1, Cabinet members worked with directors, supervisors and department chairs to determine who should return to campus and when. The office of human resources was notified of these plans. 

“Return to work patterns will vary across campus for the month of June and most areas will stagger employees back so we can gain in our comfort level and confidence throughout the summer. As more employees return to campus, it will be essential for employees to know that the community is following stated guidelines, thus promoting the safety of all,” a campus-wide email stated.

Jewell announced that not all employees will return to campus work in the month of June. If possible and approved, employees are encouraged to continue working remotely.

After confirming a COVID-19 case in a College employee, Jewell reiterated its recommendation that employees work remotely for the month of June, if possible.

“Supervisors are being instructed that employees who are vulnerable due to their health condition, who have health safety concerns for members of their household, or who lack childcare should work remotely during the month of June,” the email stated.

Before employees return to on-campus work, they should take their temperature daily for 14 days and engage in other self-monitoring activities associated with COVID-19. Employees will be asked to submit a pre-screening form to human resources before returning to campus. Those with symptoms – including a temperature of over 100.0 degrees or greater and other COVID-19 symptoms – will be told to quarantine for 14 days and will be directed to medical evaluation.

Preventative Measures & Directives

In addition to these measures before return to campus, social distancing policies have been put in place on campus. Facial coverings will be required of all employees on campus.

Jewell’s policy on facial coverings can be found here. More information about facial coverings can be found using these links: Use of Cloth Face Covering to Slow Spread of COVID-19, How to Safely Wear and Take Off a Cloth Face Covering and Important Information About Your Cloth Face Covering.

The College is in the midst of acquiring facial coverings, cleaning supplies and other equipment – including thermometers, personal protective equipment, etc. – for use by employees. Departments are directed to not purchase items for use in only one area or department with College purchasing cards. All needs should be directed to Joe Garcia, vice president of finance and operations. A detailed and centralized process will be followed to obtain and purchase necessary supplies. 

All facilities will mandate six feet of social distancing at all times. Open workspaces – which cannot be separated by a closed doorway – and/or shared workspaces must not have more than one employee per 100 square feet – or a 10 x 10 foot space. Facilities management is assisting in identifying areas needing to comply. Plexiglass will be installed in high traffic customer service areas at the direction of MRIGlobal.

“Employees may have staggered on-campus workdays to promote a safe environment. Alternative work spaces may be provided,” the email announcement said. 

Social distancing is also recommended in outdoor settings.

The College is mandating cleaning of occupied high-touch areas. The “wingtip and wipe” activity – to wipe down everything within the span of open arms – is to be used in restrooms and open counter spaces – including break rooms and service counters. All surfaces that may or may not have been touched within arms reach should be disinfected and wiped. 

“All touched surfaces should be thoroughly wiped after use, including sinks and faucets, countertops, toilets, water stations, etc. Cleaning supplies such as disposable gloves, sanitizing wipes, disinfecting spray, hand sanitizer and/or hand soap will be provided by Facilities Management,” the College said. 

Clay County has COVID-19 tests available to all Clay County residents and Jewell students at no cost. Individuals may be tested regardless of whether or not they are symptomatic. Members of the College community are encouraged to visit the Shoal Creek testing center if they wish to be tested. Everyone who believes they have been infected with or exposed to COVID-19 are strongly recommended to go get tested. 

The College is not requiring employees to get tested in June or July but will require testing as people continue to return in August. An email announcement stated that more information will be coming throughout the summer. 

Current State

As of May 29, the College is at Threat Level C following a confirmed case of COVID-19 in an employee. The employee was last on campus May 22 and was confirmed to have COVID-19 May 28. The individual may have come into contact with only one other employee. That employee was directed to get tested and self-isolate for 14 days. 

All employees working or living in the buildings in which the infected individual worked were informed and advised to get tested at the Shoal Creek testing center.

Following the confirmation, Jewell announced plans to deep clean the campus. Employees were directed to work remotely from May 29 to June 1 for the cleaning to take place. 

“We will monitor the situation and adjust back to Threat Level B when all circumstances related to this case have been mitigated,” stated an email from Dr. Elizabeth Macleod Walls, president of the College,  to faculty and staff. 

Decision Making

Macleod Walls will declare the OSC level the College is at and will coordinate movement from one threat level to another. These decisions will be made in consultation with the Board of Trustees, Cabinet, Clay County Health Department, Liberty Hospital and MRIGlobal. 

Macleod Walls will communicate changes in threat levels immediately. She will remind employees to consult the OSC matrix to determine which protocols to follow.

“For the safety of our community, our actions in response to different threat levels will continue to be guided by our partners with medical and biorisk expertise,” the email announcement stated. 

Jewell’s operational planning team includes: Daniel Holt – chair of the planning team, Dr. Gary Armstrong, Paula Brown, Dr. Ian Coleman, Tom Eisenhauer, Stephany Guest, Heath Hase, Landon Jones, Shelly King, Dr. Gina Lane, Dr. Will Lindquist, Dr. Leesa McBroom, Dr. Maggie Sherer and Ernie Stufflebean.

Threatening man behind sad little girl.

In previous articles it was discussed the correlation between dysfunctional behavior and child abuse, its psychological effects on the brain, the negative effects of spanking and the ethical nature of corporal punishment. This piece shall be a summation of such writings.

Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) are extremely prevalent. Sexual and physical abuse is far too rampant and nearly all mothers report striking their infant within the child’s first year of life, often with sticks or belts.

Treatment of a child during early development is one of, if not the single greatest determining factor to dysfunction later in life. Highly traumatized individuals attempt self-medication by abusing drugs, alcohol or cigarettes.

ACEs have a graded association with chronic depression and antidepressant medication. Because such medication is psychotropic, it can often lead to violent tendencies, continuing the cycle of dysfunction. Furthermore, an increase in traumatic childhood experiences corresponded with a greatly increased rate of suicide. Individuals with seven or more ACEs are thirty-two times more likely to attempt suicide than people who experienced no trauma in their childhood.

Biologically, it makes sense why traumatized children are likely to develop dysfunction later in life. Because 90 percent of the brain develops within the first four years of life, negligence and child abuse have such disastrous tolls on the brain.

Individuals who experienced childhood distress had physically different brains than those who had stress-free childhoods. ACEs cause the prefrontal cortex to shrink while the amygdala enlarges and becomes hyperactive. As a result, the ability to rationally think diminishes while the instinct to fight is abnormally strong.

Dr. Elizabeth Gershoff’s comprehensive meta-analysis of over 88 studies concluded, unquestionably, that spanking leads to aggression, antisocial behavior, physical injury, mental health problems, and even a substantial decreases in IQ.

Despite these horrific effects of childhood trauma, the most popular technique to discipline children is through physical violence: spanking. It is a widely used weapon in parents’ arsenal of punishment. Despite nearly universal data that condemns the practice of spanking, nearly all parents still hit their children.

Parents should treat their children better than servers that bring out their food, better than the police officer that pulls them over for speeding, better than their boss when asking for a raise, better than their pastor – better than anyone else in their lives.

Parents must – if they care for the sanctity of their child’s mind and body – immediately cease spanking before further irrevocable damage occurs. This is not an issue to set aside, nor one to take lightly. There is so much wrong in the world it can seem overwhelming and perhaps impossible to repair.

A single individual may not have much political or social power but a group of dedicated individuals can change the world. Anyone who wishes to improve society must first examine the family. Violence against children must stop now. It must stop today and it must stop forever.

Photo courtesy of americanspcc.org.

It is not pleasant to have a strongly held opinion invalidated. Like a Band-Aid, ripped off, it exposes the foul sore of falsehood underneath. Despite tranquil satisfaction in the familiar, one should always strive toward truth. It was Socrates who once said, “follow the argument, wherever it may lead,” though it may not lead somewhere comfortable.

Surely the first abolitionist was ostracized from his community, scorned at every opportunity and plotted against by foes previously called friends. Should William-Lloyd Garrison have ceased printing “The Liberator”? Nonsense. Truth is the pursuit of pursuits! Veracity comes at a cost – tradition may be shown obsolete, routine practices found immoral.

Progress through history has never been tame – only the radical challenges the status quo.

Though spanking one’s children is a practice embedded in culture like mortar and brick, an open mind and a willingness to pursue virtue is necessary to ameliorate mankind and jettison dissolution.

Children’s developing brains soak up their environment like sponges and adapt to change. Science has repeatedly proven that violent behavior, physical pain and trauma affect development so drastically that dysfunction is not only common but almost expected. Yet, nearly all of society around the world employ violent behavior, physical pain and harm the brains of their children in the name of discipline.

In ancient times, the wife was property of her husband, an item to be beaten, raped, divorced or murdered without reproach or legal repercussions. During the 15th century, the Roman Catholic Church endorsed spousal abuse and argued that beating showed concern for a wife’s soul. Presently, domestic abuse is nearly universally repudiated and disavowed by all.

If a modern study that revealed two-thirds of husbands strike their spouses at least once per day for things like “supper being too cold,” or “the beer being too warm,” media coverage would be never-ending, political leaders would publicly reject this behavior and such would be the conversation on every tongue. Although science is – and has been – nearly universally conclusive for almost 30 years about the toxicity of corporal punishment and its effects on the brain, the news goes unreported and politicians fall silent.

Domestic violence, albeit an archaic, disgusting practice that lacks all vindication, is comparatively morally insignificant to the wicked violence against babies, toddlers, and young children. Before a husband and wife get married, they have the opportunity to get to know each other. Some couples even date for years before deciding to marry.

A wife can leave a relationship whenever she desires. A baby, on the other hand, comes into the world involuntarily, without the ability to select or choose their parents. Children cannot leave their home – they have no independence and cannot support themselves. Hitting a wife is despicable, hitting a teenager is vicious, hitting a toddler is ruthless, but striking an infant – for any reason whatsoever – is complete and utter barbarism.

The average height of an adult woman is 5’5” tall, translating to more than triple the size of a baby. In one moment, parents speak love to their child, but in the next, they strike them. In what moral, peace-loving world could such cruelty be tolerated?

Current laws in the U.S. permit spanking and legal provisions against violence and abuse are not interpreted as prohibiting all corporal punishment. Slavery was legal at one point – the law does not constitute morality.

The common argument in favor of corporal punishment, “I was spanked and I turned out fine” is fundamentally flawed. Not all smokers die from smoking-induced illness, but that certainly does not deem it a safe and healthy practice.

In order to substantially prevent dysfunction, peaceful parenting is an amazing start; however, it doesn’t solve everything. A nonviolent marriage is certainly better than an abusive one, but it doesn’t mean it won’t end in divorce. The ACE study analyzes not only physical abuse but also mental and emotional trauma. A proper parent-child relationship needs to be peaceful, but it also it needs love and emotional support.

No mother or father is given a parenting guide upon the birth of their child; however, they should attempt to educate themselves. People save money for vacation; take out loans to buy lawn mowers and to remodel their house. If massive amounts of money are spent on something as trivial as lawn equipment, the money could certainly be spent on parenting books, counseling or any other resources necessary in the peaceful upbringing of a child. Of how much more importance is the development – and future life – of a child than a cruise to Hawaii?

Photo courtesy of americanspcc.org.

Many studies have found that spanking is tremendously common. Over 90 percent of American families report using spanking as means of discipline at least once. Sixty-eight percent of American parents believe spanking is not only suitable, but essential to child rearing. Shockingly, over 90 percent of American parents strike their toddlers at least three times a week – two-thirds at least once a day.

Research shows that corporal punishment is wielded both on children exceedingly young and teenagers. One in four parents begin to spank when their child is only six months old, 62 percent begin when the child is twelve months. Such discipline of young children is correlated with the continued spanking of adolescents, with more than 52 percent of 13 and 14 year-olds being hit an average of eight times per year.

Though many parents believe violent discipline is not used in anger but often “in love,” data shows otherwise. Multiples sources indicate parents are more likely to spank when they are irritable, depressed, fatigued, stressed or angry, which challenges the notion that most parents hit in a calm, peaceful manner. In 44 percent of those surveyed, spanking was used roughly 50 percent of the time because parents had “lost it.”

According to a self-reporting study, 54 percent of mothers admit that spanking was the wrong punishment in at least half the times they used it. Approximately 85 percent of parents expressed moderate to high anger, remorse and agitation while punishing children. Parents who experienced frequent physical punishment as children perceive it as acceptable and frequently spank their children, which adds to the cycle of abuse. Although spanking is justified in the eyes of more than 90 percent of parents, 85 percent say they would rather not if they had an acceptable alternative.

Research shows that such violence against children has many profound negative effects later in life. Multiple studies show that physical punishment – including hitting, spanking or causing physical pain – can lead to aggression, antisocial behavior, physical injury and even health problems for children. When spanking fails, parents tend to increase intensity rather than change strategies. Physical punishment may not always be immediately effective, so parents escalate it.

Dr. Elizabeth Gershoff published a meta-analysis of over 88 studies conducted over 62 years and determined the effects of spanking on child behaviors. Apart from immediate, short-term compliance, she found spanking also had numerous negative results on other behaviors.

“Children who are spanked as one-year-olds are more likely to behave aggressively and perform worse on cognitive tests as toddlers than children who are spared the punishment, research from Duke University shows. Almost all the studies point to the negative effects of spanking. It makes kids more aggressive, more likely to be delinquent and to have mental health problems. [Because children tend to mimic parental behaviors, it’s possible spanking] creates a model for using aggression,” Gershoff commented. “Less is known why spanking could inhibit cognitive development. One possibility is that parents who spank are less likely to use reasoning with their children, something that’s good for development.”

A comprehensive study by researchers at the University of New Hampshire concluded spanking by parents, especially on younger children, can induce permanent, significant mental damage and lower IQ later in the child’s life.

The researchers also found lower average IQ in nations in which spanking was more prevalent. Children who were hit had up to a five-point reduction in IQ compared the IQ’s of kids who weren’t spanked – and the more children were spanked, the lower their IQ.

A study, which defined spanking as hitting a child, usually on the buttocks, at least three times a week, showed that corporal punishment significantly slows the development of mental ability, particularly in children two to six years old. Spanking and cognitive development are dose-dependent – the more children are hit, the more their mind suffers.

Ninety-three percent of mothers hit their two to four year olds an average 3.6 times per week or 187 times per year. Thirteen percent of parents hit their children at least seven times per week.

It is not surprising that frequent use of spanking can lead to highly aggressive behavior in children who receive it. Analyses conclude that when children three years old are spanked, they have an increased risk of child aggression only two years later. Even for controlling for baseline antisocial behavior, the more three-to-six-year-olds were hit, the worse their behavior was a few years later.

Children of parents who use physical punishment are significantly more likely to engage in aggressive behaviors like bullying and fighting. Even minimal amounts of spanking are precursors to antisocial behaviors like cheating, lying and bullying. Children in a punitive environment at age two to three years scored 39 percent higher on a scale of aggressive behavior than children in non-punitive homes. Children from eight-to-nine-years of age scored 83 percent higher.

Spanking not only causes dysfunction and impaired cognitive ability, but because of increased aggression and disobedience, it also fails to regulate behavior long-term.

“You cannot punish out these behaviors that you do not want. There is no need for corporal punishment based on the research. We are not giving up an effective technique. We are saying this is a horrible thing that does not work,” Alan Kazdin, Yale University psychology professor and director of the Yale Parenting Center and Child Conduct Clinic, articulated.

Because spanking is so culturally accepted, it may be difficult to question its efficacy or imagine other alternatives. Traditions lasting generations are hard to break; however, it is crucial to recognize that this barbaric tool must be discarded. My next article will discuss the ethical nature of corporal punishment and propose ideas that will lead to a world less prone to violence and dysfunction.

Photo courtesy of americanspcc.org.