Jewell students spend months and sometimes years planning and researching for their Colloquium presentations, which can vary from intricate biochemical studies to original musical compositions to investigative political research. After submitting an abstract of their proposed presentation, the Duke Colloquium Committee, composed of an assortment of Jewell’s professors, approves the abstract, and the students are given approximately a month to assemble their presentations.

This year, over 70 students presented research, either alone or in teams of two or three students.

Elliott Yoakum

One of these students was Elliott Yoakum, sophomore Oxbridge Literature & Theory major. Yoakum presented his research of white control over the writings of marginalized people in a presentation titled “Illuminating a Pattern of White Supremacy in American Authorship: Control of Texts by Pontiac, Tecumseh, and Phillis Wheatley.” The presentation was based on a research paper he delivered at the National Undergraduate Literature Conference.

Tiffany Eldridge

Tiffany Eldridge, senior psychology and Applied Critical Thought and Inquiry (ACT-In) major, presented a psychological study she conducted among female psychology students. 

In her presentation titled “Female Perspectives of Traditional Gender Stereotypes,” Eldridge explored the extent to which women on Jewell’s campus hold gender-based stereotypes. Though not to a statistically significant extent, Eldridge found that women involved in Greek life may tend to hold more traditional gender stereotypes than their independent counterparts.

Seki Anderson

In Seki Anderson’s, senior biochemistry and ACT-In major,  presentation titled “The Exploration of the Number of Chromosome Copies in Cyanobacteria,” she presented research into cyanobacteria’s unique genome-copying process. Anderson’s research aids in the exploration of cell division and diversity.

Valerie Yeutter, senior mathematics major, presented mathematical research in her presentation, titled “A Probabilistic Analysis of the Card Game ‘Lost Cities.’” By analyzing patterns of chance and strategy in ‘Lost Cities,’ Yeutter derived mathematical formulas that could increase a player’s chance of winning.

Valerie Yeutter

Luke Lockhart, senior biology major, presented two original compositions in his performing arts project titled, “Compositions from New Orleans.” These, among others, were written in and inspired by his time spent during his Journey Grant trip in New Orleans, Louisiana. In a slideshow, Lockhart showed pictures of the jazz clubs he visited and their influences in his composition. Then, with three clarinetists from the Jewell community, Lockhart performed two of his pieces.

Luke Lockhart

These five projects are only a sampling of the Jewell talent and mastery that was on display April 20. Abstracts of each of the 82 projects can be viewed here.

Photos by Christina Kirk. 

Zervos’s victory is looking much more likely after she and her lawyers managed to subpoena the Trump campaign for all documents relating to her. Though this subpoena was issued in March, it was brought to light in October by reporters at BuzzFeed.

The subpoena is rather broad in its scope and may help other alleged victims. It requests documents relating to “any woman alleging that Donald J. Trump touched her inappropriately.”

It also requests documents relating to Trump defenders in this sexual assault case. Some may raise eyebrows, like former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani defended Trump after the infamous Access Hollywood tape leaked and subsequent allegations of sexual assault, saying “men at times talk like that.”

The 20-page lawsuit reads like a New York Times exposé. In it, Zervos’s entire history with Trump is chronicled in detail. Zervos first met Trump as a contestant on The Apprentice. Though Trump fired her, she stayed in his favor and maintained contact.

Zervos, like many of the other women who have accused Trump of sexual assault, initially admired him for perceived business success and acumen. She wanted Trump’s advice and guidance to expand her restaurant business. Trump would greet Zervos with a kiss on the lips, taking her aback. However, Zervos assumed that Trump “just greeted people that way.”

Future meetings involved Trump making advances towards her, including grabbing her breasts, embracing her and pressing his genitals against her, all without her consent. Zervos repeatedly pushed Trump away, occasionally accompanied with clear rejections.

Zervos was being patient with a man who repeatedly made unwanted advances on her because she believed the meetings would be beneficial to her business pursuits. In the long run, they weren’t. Zervos did not pursue sexual assault charges at the time because, as the lawsuit claims, she thought that the advances were an isolated incident. She even thought that Trump “had been testing her and that she had passed.”

The document begins with a description of Trump’s comments on the Access Hollywood tape because that was a turning point for Zervos. With Trump explicitly claiming that he’s allowed to sexually assault women on a regular basis due to his celebrity status, Zervos began to see him as “a sexual predator who had preyed on her and other women.”

But, Zervos isn’t suing Trump for sexual assault. Once his image as an advisor was shattered, Zervos came forward with attorney Gloria Allred to detail her troubling experiences with the then-presidential candidate.

That’s when the alleged defamation began. With less than a month left until Election Day, Trump claimed Zervos’s accusation was a fabrication.

The lawsuit includes a long list of statements, tweets and press releases in which Trump claims that Zervos’s accusations are “yet another hoax.” The document doesn’t hold back, calling all of Trump’s claims “false and defamatory.”

In the State of New York, where the case has been filed, one must establish  “actual malice” to prove defamation. A statement made with actual malice is done so “with knowledge that it was false.” If a statement is made with actual malice and causes damages, the victim is entitled to compensation.

In her lawsuit, Zervos’ lists financial damages totaling $2,914 due to fewer customers at her restaurant. The lawsuit claims that Trump ruined Zervos’ image, branding her a liar “who came forward only for fame or at the manipulation of the Clinton campaign.” Emotional damages are also listed, as Zervos calls the whole experience of the alleged defamation “painful and demoralizing.”

Zervos has asked Trump to retract his statements and apologize.

Since the case’s beginning, Trump’s defense has continually claimed that Zervos is lying, seeking fame, working for Clinton or all three. Since becoming president, Trump has added another element to his defense: his authority. Attorneys for Trump filed a statement claiming that “the Supremacy Clause [of the United States Constitution]… immunizes the President from being sued in state court while in office.”

Trump may settle in Zervos’s case, as he has done with many other lawsuits against him. But, with this broad subpoena, Zervos may be followed by several other women accusing Trump of sexual assault in a similar fashion. Zervos Complaint v. Trump could set up a precedent whereby Trump’s tweets could come back to haunt him, as anyone could go after him for insults made during his campaign.

Photo courtesy of Time Magazine.

A sports league commissioner’s contract negotiations, however, are not a TV drama to most. The average football fan is more interested in whether or not a star quarterback will be traded or the actual game on the field.

But NFL commissioner Roger Goodell is no average commissioner. He doesn’t receive a lot of support from fans, and the reasons for this vary depending on who you ask. He’s too strict because his “No Fun League” fines players for over-celebrating. He’s too lax for not disciplining sexual abusers enough. He’s criticized for not addressing players’ brain health adequately. He’s criticized for taking stepsto make the game less violent.

Perhaps Goodell holds the kind of job where, no matter what he does, he gets backlash for it. Booing fans are probably interested in the fact that reporting on Goodell’s contract extension, something that should be routine, has been murky and inconsistent.

Goodell became commissioner in 2006. His current contract runs out in 2019. On Aug. 21, Sports Business Journal reported that an extension through 2024 was coming soon. Sports Illustrated concurred, calling it “unsurprising” the same day.

Starting Sunday, Sept. 17, ESPN reported via an anonymous source that Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones “impeded the progress of contract negotiations.” An anonymous source in the very same article suggested that Jones thought Goodell was making too much money.

Jones may have been doing it as an act of revenge. One of his players, Ezekiel Elliott, had been suspended for six games for violating the NFL’s conduct policy. The league was conducting an investigation into alleged incidents of sexual assault while Elliott was a student at the Ohio State University.

Though the NFL Players Association sued the NFL and succeeded in getting the U.S. 5th District Court of Appeals to temporarily block the suspension, Jones may still be upset over the ongoing battle. Jones was asked about it in a post-game press conference later that Sunday and brushed it off.

“I deal with conflicts of interest every day, as do does [Goodell],” he said.

Pointing to problems with compensation is odd for Jones, however, as he’s not on the NFL’s compensation committee. He’s repeatedly claimed to represent owners who aren’t on the committee, a tough job considering he doesn’t have a seat himself.

Things seemed to subside by Wednesday, when the Washington Post reported that Goodell’s contract extension was “expected to be completed” by the committee. An anonymous source even told the Washington Post that “it was never off track.” ESPN ran a similar story Thursday, stating that, while Jones raised issues, the committee had been worked out. The contract extension was reportedly “getting done” despite Jones.

On Friday Jones changed the narrative. During a radio interview, he claimed the contract was not finished. Bleacher Report interpreted this as a sign that the contract battle was not over.

There were no new reports from ESPN, Sports Illustrated or Bleacher Report over the weekend about contract negotiations. NFL meetings weren’t being held, and reporting turned to President Donald Trump’s comments on the NFL and the league’s swift condemnation. Near-universal displays of protest and unity by players and owners followed Sunday. Goodell’s full-fledged support, along with a punch back at Trump, likely earned him brownie points.

During Sunday’s games, news on Goodell’s contract came back. CBS Sports reported a plot twist. There was never any drama with Jones. According to Jason La Confora, the contract had been agreed upon the previous Wednesday and Jones never had any say in it.

This goes against previous ESPN reporting and Jones’s own words, but the previous week showed that overall reporting never painted a clear picture. In addition, the credibility of anonymous sources and Jones, an eccentric billionaire with a made-up position to go with his real football team, can’t be perfect.

As of Sept. 29, no official announcement has been made by the NFL of Goodell’s anticipated contract extension.

Intentionally or not, genuinely or not, the NFL has spun a mystery over the fate of its owner. Is Jerry Jones telling the truth? Is it really only about money, or is it about revenge? Have we all been led to believe a false narrative? It’s drama fit for reality television, and for those paying attention, they’ll have to keep guessing until the answer is finally revealed.

Photo courtesy of WCVB-TV.

While the Rams were LA’s team for almost half a century, a 20-year hiatus in St. Louis made sure to undo that association before the team moved back to LA. Though the Chargers began their existence in LA, their move just a year later in 1961 to San Diego meant they’d never be associated with City of Angels.

The primary reason two teams converged onto LA was their stadiums. After playing in an old dome and a stadium built for a baseball team that no longer plays there, the Rams and Chargers flocked to LA. There, the suburb of Inglewood promised to shell out millions for a shiny new stadium. The Rams actually had a clause in their contract about continually modernizing their old home in St. Louis, while San Diego had a chance to substantially raise their hotel taxes to cover most of the cost of a downtown stadium before overwhelmingly rejecting it.

In both these scenarios, team owners can clearly afford to cover the majority of costs for their stadiums but don’t. When it comes down to it, stadiums are large investments in a city’s happiness, not economics, much like a park or museum. Owners often use this fact to hold a city’s team hostage, demanding a deal with better profit margins and threatening to take a town’s beating heart if they don’t get it.

This has devastated many so-called “small market” teams like St. Louis and San Diego as they watch the teams they’ve supported for years leave because of fights between businessmen and politicians. But through the years, Kansas City has kept its Chiefs, and it’s done so despite rejections of key stadium renovations and the repeated enticement of California’s coast. There are plenty of reasons for this, but the team’s ownership may be the primary one. In an age when most teams are commodities bought and sold by businessmen, the Chiefs have been a family-owned organization passed down by the Hunts.

The NFL’s two conferences, the American and National Football Conferences, used to be separate leagues. In 1960, the NFL was the dominant football league with a monopoly over the game. This became a problem when the league started becoming more conservative in its policy, most notably with its unwillingness to award expansion teams to large cities hungry for football. The then-Chicago Cardinals, overshadowed by the more successful Chicago Bears, were willing to move and grant a city a franchise to cheer on.

Investor Lamar Hunt tried to make that city his hometown of Dallas, but the Cardinals weren’t convinced a team would work there. Hunt then went to the commissioner of the NFL to advocate for expansion teams, only to have the idea brushed aside. Hunt then did what seems to be an all-too-common American tale: dissatisfied with the NFL, he made his own league, the American Football League (AFL).

Unlike previous iterations of the same name, the AFL was actually successful, opening up eight teams across the nation in locations that would cultivate rivalries. Hunt himself founded his own team, the Dallas Texans, in 1960. He was quickly matched by the NFL with an expansion team, the Dallas Cowboys.

Though the Texans were successful, it was quickly realized that even a big city like Dallas couldn’t support two teams, and the Texans began looked for a new city. Hunt considered many southern cities. Until the Texans and Cowboys, the Washington Redskins were the unofficial team of the South. Kansas City’s mayor H. Roe Bartle convinced Hunt to come to his growing metropolis, promising 35,000 fans at his games.

As we now know, Hunt did move his franchise and stayed, despite the fact that he didn’t initially get the fans promised. Hunt didn’t care. He had a successful team flying in the face of the NFL and fans loved it. Kansas City A’s manager Charles Findley, who had been itching to move the baseball team as soon as he had bought it, tried to convince Hunt to do otherwise, calling KC “a horse-sh*t town.”

Hunt wasn’t hearing it. Despite the fact that two seasons had brought lower than expected attendance at run-down Municipal Stadium, Hunt loved seeing rabid fans in the “Wolfpack” section at every game. He personally interacted with the players, micromanaging his pride and joy through the AFL’s eventual merger with the NFL. Trusting in now-legendary coach Hank Stram, the Chiefs helped show in two Super Bowl appearances (one that ended in a victory) that Hunt’s AFL teams were the real deal.

Photo courtesy of history.com

Hunt managed the team like a business, as every NFL owner does. To him, it was more than just a business. Hunt thought he was creating a public good. He refused to call himself the owner of the Chiefs. He called himself the founder, saying “every Chiefs fan has ownership in the team.”

That attitude has continued with his son Clark, a well-known philanthropist in Kansas City who actually gave more to help make recent Arrowhead renovations happen. Even the name, Arrowhead Stadium, has remained when most stadiums in the country are financed by corporate naming rights. As long as this dynasty, from the founder to the Hunts to whoever it may be passed onto after Clark, remains, Lamar’s dream team will remain in Kansas City.