Photo by Solen Feyissa via Uplash.

The influence of social media is nothing new. Many children have access to or  use social media platforms daily, but all this is possibly about to change. Australia is on track to pass a social media ban for children who are under the age of 16 to avoid trafficking and protect juveniles online. The plan behind this ban is to issue up to a $33 million fine for social media platforms if underage users are found on their sites. 

While many parents are protective over their kids’ safety, according to an article published by The Washington Post called “Can you stop a teen from using TikTok? Australia finds out,” experts and the owners of the sites aren’t as enthusiastic. Elon Musk, the owner of X, has reportedly called this law, “A backdoor way to control access to the internet by all Australians.” Other companies have expressed their concerns by calling this law “rushed” and saying there will be “unintended consequences.” Despite these protests, this ban idea is becoming more appealing to other countries and their leaders. Foreign countries are following suit, with Paris recently passing a bill that banned social media for teens under the age of 15. Trump’s top pick for U.S. Surgeon General, Janette Nesheiwat, has been claiming to want a social media ban for children since July of this year.

 During an interview with the Washington Post’s Tech Brief, Nesheiwat stated, “In my opinion, I think social media should be banned for all teenagers, to all young children, because it’s done nothing but harm.” This is a much different approach from what the current U.S. Surgeon General, Vivek H. Murthy, has taken in the past. Murthy has talked about parents working together to protect their children online, yet cabinet members have never called for a total social media ban. Nevertheless, Nesheiwat has come to the same conclusion that the legislative body in Australia has reached: there should be a ban on social media for teenagers under 16. 

Many have wondered if Nesheiwat can impose a ban, and it seems unlikely. A Washington Post article titled “Trump’s surgeon general pick called for banning social media for teens” has stated that a ban to this degree would anger groups that are a part of the tech trade, such as Amazon, Meta, and Google. The president-elect has yet to express his views on the topic. For now, America is at a standstill regarding social media and whether a ban is ethical. Meanwhile, Australia is heading towards the future with a ban attempting to keep teens off social media for as long as possible. As this trial run occurs across the ocean, other countries will be watching to see what happens and if parents can truly protect their children from the potential terrors of technology. 

​On Sept. 19, the Kansas City Police Department became the subject of a federal investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice. The investigation is the result of the alleged long-term mistreatment of women and minorities by the KCPD, specifically in regard to its hiring practices.

​The inquiry came about after the Kansas City Star published several articles describing widespread police harassment against Black citizens and even amongst their fellow officers, causing many Black cops to resign. According to the Star’s reporting, 18 Black officers resigned over a 15-year period, and despite making up 27% of Kansas City’s population, Black individuals currently only make up 12% of the police force.

While ​public trust in the police from white citizens has remained steady, confidence from Black citizens has fluctuated over the past few years, a 2021 Gallup poll reported. They remarked that Black citizen’s confidence in police reached an all-time low in 2020 following nation-wide protests to police violence, and remains slow to recover. 

In a nationwide evaluation of policing practices, KCPD ranked among the lowest of Missouri’s 526 departments. The evaluation, compiled by the nonprofit organization Police Scorecard, reported that KCPD obtained more funding per capita, but consistently used more non-lethal and lethal force per arrest and spent more funds on misconduct settlements than 77%, 73%, 96% and 67% of other Missouri police departments respectively. The evaluation also reported that there was a greater racial disparity in use of deadly force than 62% of other departments.

On Oct. 14, a second bombshell report emerged, published by the Kansas City Defender and accusing the KCPD of failing to take concerns seriously as Kansas City community leaders reported that Black women were being targeted and kidnapped on Prospect Avenue. Just a week prior to the report on Oct. 7, a Black woman escaped captivity in Excelsior Springs, claiming that the suspect who held her in his basement kidnapped her from Prospect Avenue and also murdered several other women. Attempts to bring attention to the alleged kidnappings began in September, but according to the Defender, the KCPD addressed the disappearances as “completely unfounded” with no need for an investigation.

According to the DOJ, their investigation will specifically determine if KCPD promoted employment or hiring “pattern or practice of discrimination based on race” in violation of  the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Civil rights leaders, including  Gwen Grant who is president and CEO of Urban League of Kansas City, remain hopeful that the investigation is “just the beginning of a deeper dive that will also expand this investigation into patterns and practices of excessive and deadly force.”

Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas spoke positively of the DOJ’s investigation at a news conference about the issue: “Most of our conversations, not just in Kansas City, but in the state of Missouri, have not looked at how we can make sure that our officers — particularly officers of color and women — can be taken care of, [and] have not looked at how we can become a more diverse department reflective of our city. I think no matter what becomes of this investigation, it’s important for us to take steps and make sure we’re doing right by our officers.”

​The interim Police Chief Joseph Mabin said the department plans to fully cooperate with the investigation.

On Aug. 24, the Biden administration announced its three-step process to cancel $10,000 in student debt for low- to mid-income individuals. A myriad of reactions from relief to anger indicated the plan was as ambitious as it was controversial; such an idea has circulated the U.S. political sphere from figures like Bernie Sanders and contemporaries, but similar proposals lacked traction until this abrupt announcement.

Those with questions about funding and outreach were quick to express intrigue and curiosity regarding the program’s specificities. Thus far, the details of the plan have proven to be rather unclear, though not without direction: the White House claims that federal student loan repayments will now be paused through Dec. 31, with payments to proceed following the new year. Those affected by student debt are eligible for the aforementioned $10,000 in relief if their individual income is below $125,000 per year or $250,000 for married couples. Those listed as dependents on tax filings reportedly also qualify. Eligibility extends to an additional $10,000 in available aid if borrowers benefited from the federal Pell Grant, which itself offers 66% of its aid to those from families with average incomes beneath $60,000 per year.

The Biden Administration estimates that this plan will extend aid to 43 million Americans who have taken student loans, with a projected potential to cancel the remaining debt of approximately 20 million Americans within the total scope. In all, 27 million Americans are estimated to be eligible for the full $20,000 sum — just over 8% of the total U.S. population. Moreover, the White House calculates that nearly 90% of these benefits will be allocated to individuals making less than $75,000 per year.

According to the Aug. 24 press release, this recent push for loan forgiveness invokes a plethora of socially just advancements through racial equity, relief to low and middle-income borrowers and diversified distribution of aid to many age groups. 

Jewell students said they could experience benefits of this policy as well — hardly a surprise on account of the price tag that a higher education degree in the U.S. carry. One student, Waylon Masters, a sophomore philosophy major, said he sees the appeal of the policy as a college student.

“I’m glad there are accommodations for the Pell Grant in particular; it’s almost scary that these loans amount to a larger sum of money than I’ve held in my entire life,” Masters said. ”I can definitely see why student debt is such a huge problem for most Americans.”

No application for this form has been released to the public yet, though the date of Nov. 15 has been recommended in order to ensure borrowers receive aid before the federal debt freeze expires. Government websites remain practically evergreen in their opaque wording and constant cross-references to other federal sites; as such, those interested in the offer can visit the Department of Education’s email subscription page for further notice on the application’s availability. Additional information from the Student Aid FAQ assures would-be applicants that the program’s deadline extends into Dec. 31, 2023 — additional queries regarding eligibility may be answered there.

Complaints about racial bias in the housing assignment procedure at William Jewell College surfaced during the March 27 Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) event, but Ernie Stufflebean, assistant dean of Student Life and director of Residence Life, calls those concerns surprising and completely unfounded.

Allegations that a majority of, self-identified, African American or black students are assigned to live in the same dorm – Semple Hall – came to light during the Diversity and Inclusion event in which college leaders asked students if they’d seen examples of discrimination and racism on campus.

At the D&I event the accusations of racial bias in housing assignments were made by Micah Williams, junior Biology and Applied Critical Thought and Inquiry (ACT-In) major and president of the Black Students Association (BSA). The Hilltop Monitor sat down with Williams to learn more about these claims.

“It’s weird to me they [African American or black students] all live close together,” said Williams.“Is it a coincidence or not? It’s hard not to look like a race thing.”

“The good majority of people who live there don’t want to be there,” Williams added.

But Stufflebean calls the accusations false and asserted race is never a factor when housing decisions are made.

“It’s absolutely not true,” Stufflebean said, adding he was shocked when he heard the claims during the diversity event. “But there is that perception out there now and that is a problem.”

Housing records for the 2018-2019 academic year that Stufflebean provided The Hilltop Monitor, however, appear to support the students’ accusation.

Jewell defines “minority students” as any international student and any student who marked their race as American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, black or African American, Hispanic/Latino, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander or two or more races on enrollment forms.

Using this definition, the data shows that minority students are not represented equally in the campus’ residential facilities.

Based on those figures, 48% – or almost half of the black or African American students who live on campus – live in Semple Hall. Considering African American students make up about 4% of the student population, there does appear to be a disproportionate number of black students living in Semple.

Records show that only three of the black students living in Semple selected this dorm as their first choice when completing their 2018-2019 housing application. The other nine who were assigned would have preferred to live in a different facility.

Semple is generally ranked lower on preference lists due to one key reason: its allegedly run down conditions.

“It’s the worst building on campus,” said Williams, who lived in Semple Hall last year. “The water doesn’t work half the time, and there’s mold.”

Stufflebean said Semple Hall, built in 1957, underwent “pretty significant renovations within the last six or seven years.” Updates included new ceiling, paint and LED lighting.

“We’re not worried about paint, we’re worried about the water in bathrooms and small room sizes,” says Williams. “If we’re forced to live here all four years, at least give us somewhere nice to live.”

Days after the D&I event Residence Life Staff announced that Semple Hall would be closed for the 2019-2020 academic year to undergo renovations. It was said that this decision was made after conversations with the Student Senate. Hannah Keeney, junior psychological science major and (at the time) Treasurer of the Student Senate, said that these conversations were not related to the D&I event.

“To my knowledge, the closing of Semple is completely isolated from any D&I roundtable topics brought up,” said Keeney. “I believe the closure of Semple is completely related to building repairs and renovation.”

The statistical aversion students have to living in Semple raises the question of why a disproportionate percentage of black students ended up in a building they did not prefer.

Stufflebean said his office uses a Microsoft Excel program in the housing selection process and again emphasized race is never a factor. Student housing, he said, follows the school’s non-discrimination policy.

Stufflebean noted that the housing applications are linked to a student database which includes factors like athletic commitments, majors and whether or not the student is in Greek Life, but does not include any information about race.

Students are also allowed to self-identify their gender on the housing forms and this can play a role in the assignment of dorms, largely due to the limited number rooms available for each gender in each dorm, and the locations of gender neutral housing.

In the lottery for housing priority is first given to seniors, then juniors and sophomores. All first-years live in either Mathes Hall or Eaton Hall.

Within each grade level, priority is also determined by the date and time students turn in their housing application. The sooner students turn in their housing applications, the more likely they are to get their first pick.

Once one dorm fills up, students are automatically put into their second choice residence hall. That means Semple Hall, often picked last on a student’s ranking, serves as overflow housing. Semple Hall also houses many transfer students, these students – who frequently do not visit the campus prior to enrolling – do not get the opportunity to rank housing preferences and are automatically assigned to live in Semple in the interest of them being allocated housing efficiently.

Stufflebean said students who do not get to live in the dorm they requested are automatically waitlisted for their first choice. That means if an opening becomes available, the next student on the priority list will be contacted. Students can also ask Stufflebean for their order on that list.

Stufflebean said students can also talk to Student Life about their housing assignment at any time, although few take advantage of this option.

“You can request a room change even before the school year,” Stufflebean said. “We do everything we can to make sure students are in a place where they are comfortable.”

But students must have their bills paid to get priority housing selections.

“If a student has an outstanding balance, they may not be able to register for classes next year, which bounces them from the housing process,” Stufflebean says.

After hearing students’ concerns about possible housing discrimination, Stufflebean said he’s open to new ideas to ensure the selection process is fair.

“I’m not wed to this priority system. If the students think there’s a better way, like maybe including GPA [in determining priority], then we’re willing to talk about it. Let’s have a discussion,” Stufflebean said.

Williams, who works in Student Life and understands the inner-workings of the system, said the administration must do a better job educating students on the housing process.

“If it’s by timing you need to let people know – educate us. We deserve that,” Williams said.

Williams also said students aren’t aware of the connection between outstanding balances and their housing selections.

“If you saw how many people weren’t registered you’d be surprised. I know they make sure you know you have a balance, but the housing issue is sort of fine print,” said Williams.

Williams has one final message for the administration.

“I want them to acknowledge there is a problem – this administration tries to sweep things under the rug like we’ll forget about it. Find a way to educate us so it does not happen again.”

Both Keeney and Williams were elected to serve on the 2019-2020 Student Senate Cabinet, April 18. D&I will be a priority during their leadership and they plan to work with Student Life to implement a more equitable housing policy at Jewell.

“We look forward to investigating this issue further and working towards a more inclusive community, within upperclassmen housing in particular,” said Keeney. “We plan to meet with Student Life at least once before the school year ends, and this will be one of the topics our cabinet would like to discuss in addition to continuing open dialogue between Senate and Student Life regularly, as the cabinet prior has set as a precedent.”