Not all technology is bad, though; many beneficial uses of technology exist. We have all probably used spell-check software to remove embarrassing typos or artificial intelligence to do research for an assignment. As I’m writing this line, I have Microsoft Word open to write this article, Firefox open to research it and Taylor Swift’s “Suburban Legends” playing in my headphones. I use lots of technology.

And you probably do, too. Unless you are reading this article in the December 2023 print edition of the “Hilltop Monitor”, you are using a device of some kind—whether mobile phone, tablet, or laptop—to read this. Technology can serve humanity in all sorts of ways. We cannot deny that we are living in the Information Age.

But this relationship—technology serving humanity—is often reversed.

The Culprits
In an essay for New York Magazine, ominously titled “I Used to Be A Human Being,” Andrew Sullivan draws our attention to what seems a very simple statement. Mobile phones are, well, mobile. “At your desk at work, or at home on your laptop, you disappeared down a rabbit hole of links and resurfaced minutes (or hours) later to reencounter the world. But the smartphone then went and made the rabbit hole portable, inviting us to get lost in it anywhere, at any time, whatever else we might be doing.”

The emergence of the Information Age, especially social media, creates three critical problems.

1. Quantification of Social Standing
Social media causes the quantification of social standing. In other words, social standing now comes with numbers attached. Instagram, X (formerly known as Twitter) and Facebook all show (publicly!) how many people follow you and how many people interact with your posts. Snapchat shows you a Snapscore that increases every time you send someone a picture. YikYak has a leaderboard of people who use it, sorted by how many upvotes you receive.

These numbers on social media are a double-edged sword. Research from the University of Florida shows a significant negative impact on users’ mental health. People who look at “upward” connections—i.e., profiles that indicate the profile’s creator is “better off” than the viewer—came away with “deflated self-esteem.” In contrast, when people look at content indicating other users are “worse off”, they feel better about themselves. We trade short-term benefits for long-term detriment—while people do feel better in the short term, they do so at the expense of others.

2. Information Overload
We suffer from information overload. We have access to worlds of knowledge at our fingertips: nearly two and a half quintillion bytes per day. If you type into Google the words, “how much information is available to us right now,” Google returns this:

This does not seem to be a problem per se. Sure, there is a lot of information to sort, but there is nothing wrong with the information existing. Processing that information, though, requires our attention. As such, humans have to triage; we discern what is important, focus on those bits and disregard the rest.

However, the internet puts that system into overdrive. “Viewing and producing blogs, videos, tweets and other units of information called memes have become so cheap and easy that the information marketplace is inundated,” write Thomas Hills and Filippo Menczer of Scientific American. We do not have the ability to effectively parse everything, so our biases take over.

This inability to fully process stimuli activates what I call our “lizard brain.” We are unable to determine fact from fiction or beneficial information from bologna. Critical thinking ceases and we are open to misinformation. We need only look back two years to understand the cost of such misinformation. A Brown University analysis of the COVID-19 pandemic estimates that 319,000 lives could have been saved with vaccinations. That is ten times the population of Liberty, Missouri!

3. Virtual Substitution
Social media, messaging apps and podcasts serve as a virtual substitution for human contact. This does not seem like it should be a problem, either. After all, research exists linking “[the] quantity of one’s virtual interaction partners… [and] better mental health at both the daily level and the weekly level.”

Virtual interactions are wonderful, especially when distance makes in-person interactions impractical or impossible. But if we lack meaningful physical contact (because we limit our interactions to being virtual), we do not benefit as much. Multiple studies indicate that in-person interactions are more fulfilling; Zoom fatigue is real!

We have to take time to talk to the people we care about. If distance makes doing so impossible, maybe give the person a phone or video call. It is so much better than texting, as we can hear a person’s voice or see their face in a call.

The Solution
So what can we do? Fortunately, the Internet has plenty of information on how to avoid the devastating effects of the Internet. (Ironic, I know.) A notable work in this field is Cal Newport’s Digital Minimalism. In the latter half of his book, Newport provides solutions to escape the world of technology. I have used his recommendations to outline three easy recommendations and one difficult recommendation for busy college students.

The whole text of Digital Minimalism is worth a read; if you want to read it, it is available here for free from the Internet Archive. (Quick shoutout to the Internet Archive!)

1. Walk to Class Alone
In 1845, transcendentalist and author Henry David Thoreau expressed concern about an overly interconnected world. “We are in great haste to construct a magnetic telegraph from Maine to Texas,” wrote Thoreau in Walden, “but Maine and Texas, it may be, have nothing important to communicate.” Thoreau is not challenging the existence of the telegraph, far from it. If Maine and Texas had something important to say, then there would be justification for its construction. Thoreau is simply concerned with remaining intentional in communication.

Newport defines the phrase solitude deprivation as a “state in which you spend close to zero time alone with your own thoughts and free from input from other minds.” When this lack of solitude happens, we lose our sense of identity. I describe this phenomenon as “being afraid of my own thoughts,” however, we need time to be alone with our own thoughts.

“Ethan,” I hear you already saying, “I’m so busy with athletics or academics or extracurriculars or all three at once. How do I find time to do this?” You have more time than you think.

I often find myself (and see other people) with headphones on as soon as I walk out the door of my residence hall, keeping music or video content on for my entire walk to classes or to the Union. For those looking for an easy way to find time with their thoughts, consider walking to class alone. No headphones. Nothing playing. Just you, nature and your thoughts. You would be surprised what it does to you.

2. Stop Liking Things
Weird heading, I know. You might think I told you to not have hobbies, but that is not what I mean. Clicking ‘Like’ on something seems to be a standard way to say, “I like this! This is cool.” When Facebook introduced the ‘Like’ button in 2009, that is what it was supposed to be for. According to Newport, the ‘Like’ button was “introduced as a simpler way to indicate your general approval of a post, which would both save time and allow the comments to be reserved for more interesting notes.”

The quantification of social standing incentivizes people to constantly check their accounts, investigating to see if anyone else has ‘Liked’ their posts or story. But in terms of information conveyed, the ‘Like’ button conveys exactly one bit of information, the least amount of information possible to convey, according to information theory. “To say it’s like driving a Ferrari under the speed limit is an understatement,” writes Newport, “the better simile is towing a Ferrari behind a mule.” By conditioning our brains to accept ‘Likes’ instead of proper communication, we are selling our amazing communication capabilities short. We have limited the amount of fuel our communication can run on; we are literally receiving information one bit at a time.

3. Schedule Everything
Our lives are all defined by schedules. Every person at this College, whether student, staff or faculty, has a schedule to follow. For students, that could be a class schedule; for athletes, it could be a practice schedule. One easy way to limit your screen time is to schedule it.

Schedule time to check your social media, watch television or employ whatever form of screen enjoyment you like best. After that, put the screen away. Newport continues: “Without access to your standard screens, the best remaining option to fill this time will be quality activities.” This is a good blend of abstinence and enjoyment; while you do not have to give your media up completely, you are able to limit it in this way.

4. Detox
This solution is not for the faint of heart. If you attempt to detox, you will have to demonstrate significant self-restraint. When I first read Newport’s book as a senior in high school, I attempted this solution and failed to maintain the thirty days required of me.

Newport’s tough suggestion is to give it all up.

Take thirty days and eliminate all non-optional screens from your life. Newport considers a technology non-optional if “its temporary removal would harm or significantly disrupt the daily operation of your professional or personal life.”

Take Instagram, for example. In considering if Instagram is essential, one must ask themselves if temporary removal of Instagram would significantly disrupt their lives. In most cases, the answer is no (and no, finding out about events is not considered essential). However, if someone runs a business from Instagram (where, for example, they are posting handmade goodies to sell), then Instagram is an essential technology for them.

After the thirty-day detox, begin to introduce non-optional technologies back into your life. Doing so enables you to think critically about whether technology needs to be there or not.

If you are considering this, I seriously suggest reading the entirety of Newport’s book. He provides many more examples and much more research than I can include in this article.

Conclusions
At the beginning of this article, I noted that technology’s relationship with humanity was backward—that humanity served technology, and not the other way around. However, I sincerely believe we can undo this relationship by making our relationships both with technology and other humans intentional. By using our time wisely and using technology to our benefit, not to our detriment, we can save humanity from this servitude. The world is increasingly moving online; we must learn how to adapt.

The Incident
Mary Leniton

On Oct. 4, a student in a William Jewell College Critical Thought and Inquiry (CTI) course faced pressure from a guest lecturer to say a racial epithet. Not long after the event, outrage surfaced on YikYak, the popular anonymous social media app. The Hilltop Monitor interviewed multiple students involved in an attempt to uncover an honest account of what happened. 

The word was said in CTI 284: School & Society in the United States, which is a Power and Justice course taught by education professor Amy Barth. When the incident occurred, a Black male staff member at William Jewell College who is not a part of the teaching faculty, was guest instructing the class. The class discussion that day centered on race and the power of racially charged words.

The Hilltop Monitor has drawn the following details from discussions with students in the class. We have reached out to relevant faculty, staff and members of the William Jewell College administration for comment, but, as of publication, have yet to hear their respective points of view.

Leading up to the event in question, the staff member had previously been a guest instructor for the class over the course of several weeks. During that time, he prompted students to use racially charged language over several class periods. The language the staff member prompted grew increasingly offensive and derogatory in the classes leading up to the use of the N-word on Oct. 4.

During the first class period, a student in the class claims, the staff member prompted students to direct the word “Black” toward Black students in the room – and specifically to do so as a term with negative connotations. In a second class period, according to the same student, the staff member prompted a white male student to call six Black students “negr**s.” Students report that the staff member then repeatedly prompted a student to repeat the N-word during a lecture on Oct. 4. The N-word is a racial epithet considered hateful and highly offensive by many in the Black community. The student who said the N-word wishes to remain anonymous and has not been in contact with The Hilltop Monitor.

The student prompted to say the N-word initially avoided saying the epithet, then did so quietly after facing pressure from the staff member. Multiple students reported that the staff member’s insistence grew more demanding. The student responded by clearly and more audibly repeating the epithet, the students say. According to anonymous comments made on YikYak, the student said the N-word a total of four times.

The Student Senate and students in the class report that some measures have been taken to address concerns about this matter. On Oct. 11, the class met with Professor Barth and members of William Jewell College administration, including Dr. Rodney Smith, the Vice President for Access and Engagement; Dr. Daniel Jasper, the Vice President of Academic Affairs; and Ernie Stufflebean, the Dean of Students. The Student Senate President and other officers were also present. The Oct. 11 meeting provided students with an opportunity to express their views regarding the Oct. 4 class period and collectively process its impact. 

On Oct. 25, the staff member met with students during class to explain his reasons for prompting students to use such words. A student describes how the staff member referenced several influential Black thinkers, including Booker T. Washington and W. E. B. Du Bois, to contextualize why he conducted the class as he did. The staff member explained his efforts stemmed from a commitment to an “each one, teach one” mentality—a phrase tied to the slavery era, which encouraged enslaved individuals to educate fellow enslaved persons as a way to combat ignorance from a lack of access to education.

A Student’s Perspective
Mary Leniton

The Hilltop Monitor met with Jewell student Aniya Glenn, one of the students in the class, to discuss the use of racially charged language in the course.

As a Black woman and education major, Glenn provided valuable insight into her own experience in the class as well as that of other Black students in the class. She emphasized that after the Oct. 25 meeting with the staff member, it was clear to her that his error was in the delivery of his instruction. She explained that as an education major, “I understood that he was trying to go somewhere, but I didn’t understand where he was trying to go. I didn’t understand that he was trying to give the words less power, because it felt as if he was trying to give them more.”

During the interview, Glenn expressed concerns about the impact the staff member’s instruction had on herself and other Black students. “Once he started associating the word with me and the other black students, it became more uncomfortable for me,” Glenn said. She further described how another Black woman in the class chose not to attend on Oct. 4 because “she had a bad feeling about going [to class that day].”

Glenn did not hesitate to assert, “It’s unacceptable for a student to feel like it is unsafe to go to class.”

Glenn also reflected on the significance of the use of the N-word in the classroom after the hateful use of the same word on campus last year. She said,  “It seems as if whenever racial things happen on this campus, they’re kind of addressed enough [to save face], and then nothing else happens. There’s no true follow-up. No true consequences.” She recognized the administration did respond to the use of the word in the classroom by attending both the meetings on Oct. 11 and Oct. 25. The Hilltop Monitor is also aware of the fact that there was an email sent out to faculty and staff in regard to the matter by education professor Michael Stoll (via Dr. Smith) on Saturday, Oct 7, but students did not receive this message. 

Additionally, Glenn would like to see administration and faculty take active steps to ensure a situation like this does not occur again, possibly by previewing the staff member’s lectures, given the sensitive nature of their content, before they are presented in class.

Glenn also had a few words to share with the student body. She shared, “I ask that students actually try to go reach out and see where [the guest instructor] was coming from.”

Glenn concluded her interview with The Hilltop Monitor by giving her final thoughts on the matter. According to Glenn, the use of the N-word in the classroom was “inappropriate, but it was all in the delivery.” She explained that the word should have been delivered in context and its use made clearly optional for the students involved in the exercise. She also stated, “I think if you’re planning on singling out students or a group of students, you need to discuss…what they are comfortable with [ahead of time, especially if they’re a minority group].”

An Interview with the Student Senate President
Ethan Naber

(Disclosure: The author of this section is on the Cabinet of the Student Senate. The views presented in this section do not necessarily represent the views of the Student Senate.)

The Hilltop Monitor had the opportunity to sit down with Student Senate President Kamerin Hull for The Student Senate’s perspective on the use of the N-word in the class.

When Hull initially heard of the situation, the first thing she did was schedule a meeting with Ernie Stufflebean, Student Senate’s faculty advisor and Jewell’s dean of students, to discuss what the Senate’s response should be to the matter. The Student Senate’s cabinet then attended the class meeting with administrators on Oct. 11.

It was clear as soon as the incident occurred that the Senate was representing student voices. Hull emphasized that “[Senate cares] about the community and we want everyone to feel heard. Those that were negatively impacted, we want to really represent how they felt… If this ever occurs again, [we want students to] know what to do or where to go, [or who] is going to support them.”

The Student Senate did not make an official statement regarding the use of the N-word in CTI 284, though, preferring to wait for an administrative statement. Hull said that “[Senate was going to] give administration [a certain length of time] before the Senate might actively do something about responding to the incident.” College administrators have expressed concerns that issuing such a statement would open them to legal action. Even so, administrators have a duty to respond to such matters, and the Student Senate wants to press Jewell’s administration to respond to this incident, even if an official campus and community-wide statement is not made.

When historical context is provided, Hull explained, students can discuss a racial epithet in an appropriate and useful way. She stated, “If a professor was going to use that word…and say, ‘We are doing this in a historical lens.’ [Students could] understand that we are critiquing this word, we are not… using it or trying to give it any power.” 

Hull explained that the epithet has been “historically used to disempower people.” Given the word’s ability to disempower, she added, it is critical that members of the Jewell community acknowledge its negative impacts. 

Conclusion
Ethan Naber and Mary Leniton

Writers Leniton and Naber wish to express that whether such epithets are appropriate in any circumstance is a sensitive and important matter of discussion. Whatever one’s views may be, members of the Jewell community must make a good-faith attempt to understand each person’s point of view. We must remain empathetic as we consider the staff member’s decision to prompt the use of the N-word, but also as we consider the position of the student pressured to state the racial epithet. 

While the word is certainly hurtful and people may wish to fault the student for using it, the Jewell community must also remember that the student faced pressure from a person in power—the guest instructor—to use the epithet. Students should also remember to maintain solidarity amongst one another and stand up to power when they believe unacceptable behavior has occurred. The Jewell community must do the best it can to build an environment that adequately addresses and, when necessary, condemns unacceptable behavior in classrooms; only then will we progress as an institution.

As of the time of publication, no formal sanctions of the staff member have been announced nor has Jewell’s administration released a formal public statement addressing the incident.

In the last 10 years or so, the journalism industry has had a 25% decrease in the number of jobs available. In the next 10 years, jobs will likely decrease by another 9%. 

And though online readership has increased, this is still not enough to offset the sharp decline in print readership. Furthermore, younger generations increasingly use social media platforms like TikTok, Instagram and Twitter in order to get their daily news. 

Some of the difficulties The Hilltop Monitor faces now are reflective of these broader problems in the journalism industry. The past two years have seen a decrease in readership for The Hilltop Monitor and a decrease in the volume of articles published each issue. There is less incentive for students to write involved articles on a weekly basis when information and gossip can be easily shared in a quick YikYak. And reading these posts takes almost no effort at all – all the more convenient for the bogged-down college student trying to make it through undergraduate classes. 

But if this past year as Chief Editor has shown me anything, it’s that local news coverage – and in particular, coverage of campus events – is crucial to the development of a good college community. William Jewell College is undergoing a great deal of change. A sizable chunk of the faculty has retired or will retire soon. New programs and minors such as the Faith and Culture Center and the ancient Mediterranean studies minor respectively are being added next year. The institution is committing itself to values of radical inclusivity, diversity, access, and equity. The administration has ambitious plans for the College moving forward – they are attempting to increase the size of the student body and provide highest quality education and highest access to that education. 

And while social media sites like TikTok and YikYak are useful for getting bite-sized morsels of information, they are by nature inadequate for giving a comprehensive account of the changes at Jewell. Thus, the importance of student journalism cannot be understated. Student journalists are tasked with investigating and reporting on those issues which are most pertinent to the members of the community (and to prospective students who want information on the culture and programs of the College). 

More than keeping the community informed about important changes, student journalism itself keeps the institution accountable throughout its ongoing metamorphosis. For example, this year The Hilltop Monitor has covered an ongoing, institutional conversation concerning the nature and value of student and faculty academic freedom. Where information on this conversation was often difficult to obtain or difficult to wrap one’s head around, The Hilltop Monitor’s staff worked tirelessly to disseminate key points to the community. 

My time as Chief Editor is almost complete. I am grateful to my wonderful staff for writing substantive and well-researched stories on all sorts of subjects. I know that the staff will continue to do excellent work. And you, dear reader, are encouraged to participate in student journalism – whether as a reader or a member of the writing staff. In doing so, you will contribute to the proper development of Jewell as an institution.