This week, the William Jewell Opera and Jewell Theatre Company are putting on a production of Orpheus in the Underworld. While you probably know the tale of Orpheus and Eurydice from more modern shows like Hadestown, this 1858 comedic opera by Jacques Offenbach spins Greek Mythology into an utter farce. The story loosely follows Orpheus and Eurydice, a young couple in a loveless marriage. Both have found other lovers. Eurydice has unknowingly fallen for Pluto, God of the Underworld. Pluto takes Eurydice away, and Orpheus is overjoyed until Public Opinion finds out what has occurred. Public Opinion demands that he travel to Olympus to ask the King of Gods, Jupiter, for Eurydice’s return from the underworld; if he does not, Orpheus will lose his career. Meanwhile, Eurydice has been trapped in the underworld, and her fate balances in the hands of the many gods who see her as a distraction from their otherwise boring lives.

The cast consists of 14 students, who study a variety of majors but all share a common interest in the performing arts. The production has been led by Music and Stage Director Dr. Laura Lowry, Collaborative Pianist and Assistant Music Director Leslie Bunch, and Technical Designer Nathan Wyman. The student leadership of this production stands out, as they went above and beyond to support their colleagues and present a quality show. The instrumental section is completed by Violinist Bryson Gates. Choreography was done by Lauren Taylor, Technical Direction by Lianna Morelli, Costumes, Hair, and Makeup were designed by Kai Robbins, Poster and Program Design by E.E. Naber and Bryson Gates. The Tech Crew includes Milo Johnson, Zachary Muñoz and Molly Touzinsky.

I was able to speak with Choreographer Lauren Taylor and Costume Designer Kai Robbins about their involvement and experience with putting together the opera. Lauren Taylor is a Senior majoring in Education and Psychology. Lauren choreographed several shows while in high school, but this is her first time choreographing a show in college. When asked about her favorite part of the production, Lauren said it was “making up choreography, which I’m like, ‘I don’t know if this is gonna work’. And then the first time that everyone did it together and it finally worked out I was like, ‘woah, it actually looks so good’.”

Kai Robbins is a first-year majoring in Political Science. Kai has previously worked on costumes, hair, wigs and makeup both in high school and earlier this fall for the Jewell Theater Company’s Production of Two Rooms. Kai said that their favorite part of this production was “Getting to piece it all together in these last couple of days. The lights coming together, and everyone’s vocals coming together. I’m finally getting costumes ready and everything, and watching everyone try them all on. Just like, every puzzle piece finally fitting together.”

There are only three chances to see this incredible opera. The show starts at 7pm on Thursday, April 23^rd and Saturday, 25^th, as well as 3pm on Sunday the 26^th. The show will be on campus in Peters Theater. There are no tickets for this show, rather a suggested donation of $10 at the door. We hope to see you there!

On Nov. 10, members of the Racial Reconciliation Commission (RRC) hosted a Town Hall meeting, inviting members of the William Jewell College community “to meet the Commissioners as we provide a detailed update of [the RRC’s] recent activities” and to share their concerns and perspective on the RRC thus far.

The meeting was led by Rodney Smith, chair of the RRC and vice president for access and engagement. Other College staff members were also in attendance, including Elizabeth MacLeod Walls, president of the College; Gary Armstrong, interim vice president of academic affairs; Clark Morris, vice president of advancement and executive director of Harriman-Jewell Series; Angela Bass, executive assistant to the president, and, additionally, some members of the Board of Trustees. 

Commissioners of the RRC – in addition to Smith and Morris – were also present: Vernon Howard, president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Greater Kansas City and distinguished Jewell alumnus; and Robert Powers, electronic resources and archives librarian. Powers was announced as the RRC’s newest commissioner at the Town Hall meeting. 

The meeting began by Smith sharing “Principles of Commemoration” under which the RRC operates:





In accordance with these principles, the RRC drafted a “Statement of Atonement” – this statement will be publicly shared on the Jewell website some time in the future.



The statement restipulates the aim of the RRC as expressed in the College’s official page for Diversity and Inclusion: the RRC is tasked with “finding and expressing both an historical and moral truth about the racial history of William Jewell College.” 

To accomplish this end, the RRC “for over a year has investigated the connections between the College, its founders and the institution of slavery.” The RRC concluded that “the connections [between the College, its founders and the institution of slavery] are clear and undisputable.”

After presenting the Principles and Statement, Smith presented actionable goals which the RRC recommended the Jewell community pursue to achieve racial reconciliation. These goals were separated out into four headings: “Addressing Historical Inaccuracy,” “Commemoration,” “Repair and Restoration,” and “Creating a Better Future.”

Addressing Historical Inaccuracy
Under the heading of Addressing Historical Inaccuracy, the statements reads:


Smith clarified that the role of the RRC with respect to providing a history of the College. Though “there was a perception that the commission would write a history of the College,” as Smith explained, the role of the RRC is to commission a report — not to write one. However, Smith stated that a “deeper and more fulsome report” building on the RRC’s initial report of January of 2022 will be released in the future.

Throughout the Town Hall meeting, MacLeod Walls emphasized that the College plans to commission experts to undertake the necessary research required to compile a comprehensive report on the history of the College. This commission is necessary as ”no experts on campus are conducting research in the history of the College,” MacLeod Walls added. 

Further, MacLeod Walls stated that, previously, “we had reached out to Dr. Wilkins, but that didn’t happen,” in reference to the Slavery Memory, and Justice Project (SMJP), a group of 25 students, as well as alumni and faculty – including  Christopher Wilkins, associate professor of history – who have conducted extensive research in the history of slavery’s influence on the College. 

Over the past two and a half years, the SMJP carried out research in the William Jewell College Archives, as well as other historical archives in Clay County, Boone County and Jackson County. SMJP researchers have also worked with archivists from the State Historical Society of Missouri, the Missouri Historical Society, and Kentucky’s State Historical Society. SMJP members have presented their scholarship to the campus community in 2021 and 2022, in a series of Hilltop Monitor articles (see here, here, here, here, and here) and academic conferences. Furthermore, the work of the SMJP has been recognized by the Kansas City Star, the Kansas City Beacon, KCUR, and the Pitch Weekly. On the basis of the scholarly expertise acquired in its research and publications, the SMJP will publish a 100+ page report and present it at this year’s Duke Colloquium. Members of the SMJP were in attendance during the Town Hall meeting. 

After students in the audience voiced confusion about the distinction between researching and commissioning, MacLeod Walls stated that commissioning is something that “has no end in sight” and is concerned with the unfolding of the history of the College and its continuing effects to this day. Research, on the other hand, is “a specific scholarly activity,” MacLeod Walls elaborated – a commission is larger than just research insofar as it tells an unfolding story. 

Howard noted that, to his knowledge, very few institutions are engaging in the kind of work in reconciliation that Jewell is – though Howard also noted that the Kansas City Star had completed similar work. 

Adding to Howard’s statement, Ian Coleman, professor of music and chair of performing arts, noted the importance of taking time to commission work: “We have to get it right… [we must recognize that] not every step forward will be the right one” and that the Jewell community must exercise grace and long-term commitment to “getting it right.” Such an attitude of grace and commitment would manifest itself as “not being defensive when criticisms are offered” and “constantly… doing better after making mistakes,” Coleman added. 

In support, Smith emphasized the importance of taking concrete steps as soon as possible, but maintained that ”we need to deliberate” in an appropriate fashion. Smith further emphasized: “Perfection is not possible. Excellence is.” 

In response to concerns about not moving quickly enough, faculty in attendance suggested potential first steps. Kelli Schutte, professor and chair of the Department of Business and Leadership, indicated that the College could commission art works and begin changing the names of relevant buildings and programs such as the Doniphan Leadership Institute. 

Schutte and Smith both agreed that it was certainly possible to achieve this “low hanging fruit,” with MacLeod Walls adding that it would not be necessary to get approval of the Board of Trustees for each and every change in the College. In fact, MacLeod Walls explained that the Board of Trustees has “been informed on this issue… [it’s just a matter] of taking the show on the road.”

As a further clarification of the RRC’s role with respect to addressing historical inaccuracy, Morris added that “the Commission brings recommendations to the College, the President and the Board of Trustees.” The President and the Board of Trustees ultimately make the decisions based on these initiatives, though, as MacLeod Walls explained, not all decisions require Board approval. Morris also concurred that the “recommendations of the Commission have already been brought to the Board.”

In a separate email after the town hall, Smith offered further clarification on the extent of the Board of Trustee’s involvement in the recommendations presented by the RRC. The board is completely aware of the recommendations that were presented [during] last week[‘s Town Hall meeting],” Smith stated. “As you know, some of the recommendations are low-hanging fruit and will not need Board approval, but as you’ve stated, some are more impactful and will need Board approval. With that said, the board has not ‘signed off’ on the Jewell Hall recommendation yet; they requested more time to deliberate. And yes, the Board is quite familiar with the Commission and the Commission’s recommendation regarding Jewell’s official history. In fact, one of the Trustees serves on the Commission.” 

Smith’s statement regarding ‘the Jewell Hall recommendation’ is in reference to one of the actionable goals under the heading of “Commemoration.” 

Commemoration 

Under the heading of “Commemoration,” the statement reads:

Smith used the suggestion of changing the name of the “Alexander Doniphan Leadership Award” as an example of names that continue to do harm. The award is named after Alexander Doniphan, a 19th century Missourian attorney, politician and soldier who played a crucial role in founding the College. Investigation by the SMJP uncovered Doniphan’s pro-slavery stance and ties. The SMJP’s findings were made public in an article published through The Hilltop Monitor in April 2021. It is in light of the public dissemination of the SMJP’s research that the RRC recommends that the College endorse Student Senate’s action to rename the award to the “William G. Summers Award.”

The recommendation that Jewell Hall be renamed caused much discussion, as the suggestion does not stipulate what Jewell Hall’s new name should be. Smith indicated that the RRC intentionally has not suggested a name thus far because they feel that the topic should be discussed with the broader campus community. As Smith later clarified in the aforementioned post-meeting email, renaming Jewell Hall was one of the recommendations that the Board of Trustees had not yet signed off on, citing that additional time was needed to deliberate. 

One way of fulfilling the RRC’s recommendation would be to rename Jewell Hall after a particular slave who was involved in building it; however this consideration prompted a student in the audience to ask whether the RRC knew the names of the enslaved persons. Smith responded that such facts were not yet known, but said that it was possible that research conducted by the SMJP could shed light on this question.

Students also raised the issue of whether the name of the College itself was something that the RRC recommended the Board review. In the RRC’s initial report, William Jewell –  who was responsible for the $10,000 endowment that started the College – was found to have owned slaves. Smith responded that this was just a consideration which he wanted the Jewell community – especially students – to engage with.

Difficulties in changing the College’s name were raised by Bass in particular. Though she emphasized that she was not claiming to be “one way or the other” in terms of a name change, she asserted that “changing the name of the College, at this point, would be extremely detrimental to the institution.” However, Smith added that in some respects “the Jewell community is already changing the name of the College” by the kinds of commitments that are undertaken by the institution – the RRC being one of these. Smith said that he supported recommendations to change the name of the College to simply “Jewell” or “Jewell: The Critical Thinking College.” 

Over the course of the conversation, Howard noted that “name changes are, of course, not the only solutions” available to the College. He elaborated that it is also possible to commit to a long-term engagement of “increasing the number of black faculty, making changes to the budget and creating scholarship opportunities that facilitate an entrenched African American presence at Jewell.” Howard emphasized that this undertaking is “an evolving process.”

Repair and Restoration 

Under the heading of Repair and Restoration, the statement reads:

Creating a Better Future
Under the heading of Creating a Better Future, the statement reads:

The recommendations under the headings of “Repair and Restoration” and “Building a Better Future” concur with Howard’s statements recognizing the many opportunities available for achieving racial justice. Building on Howard’s comment, Smith emphasized that he personally hosts Radical Inclusivity workshops. Further, he noted that this year’s incoming first-year class, by composition, was approximately 38% Black or otherwise constituted by people of color. 

To confirm this statistic, Eric Blair, vice president of marketing, enrollment and student life, was contacted independently via email. According to Blair, “38% diverse was the number [the College] reported in August at the start of term. The official percentage fell to 35% diverse at census date in late September. Census date is the date we capture student data for reporting to the federal government and other agencies for compliance and reporting mandates.” Blair shared the following accompanying graph illustrating the “Percentage of cohort by race/ethnicity, Fall 2022 new student cohort.” 

At the institutional level, the Jewell community engages with the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) Survey, a 50-question survey that Smith described as a kind of Myers-Brigg of cultural difference. More information on the IDI survey generally can be found as reported by The Hilltop Monitor. 

Smith also emphasized that “we are working to inform search committees on their implicit biases” and that work is being done to “[qualify] the applicant pool to ensure some candidates of color will be considered.”

The entirety of the meeting was punctuated by an insistence on the importance of including student voices in the work of unfolding the College’s historical narrative with respect to the institution of slavery. In keeping with this theme, professor of history and chair of the department Daniel Kotzin – apart from emphasizing the importance of institutional partnerships for the purposes of expert research – indicated that a “student-led commission” investigating the history of the College could be a crucial component moving forward.

Towards the end of the Town Hall meeting, Ian Wooldridge, the records and finance officer of Student Senate, asked: “What amount of the research may have already been done by the Slavery, Memory and Justice project and the students and faculty that are a part of that, and will the RRC recognize the work of the SMJP when it is released?” 

Smith responded: “Absolutely… we welcome the scholarship of the SMJP project and we look forward to when  [the report is] published. Absolutely, and we’ll cite, reference and want their expertise [and] their voice to be a part of this work.” 

Given the town hall’s repeated emphasis on including the voices of members of the Jewell community, The Hilltop Monitor invites any and all interested parties to provide comments, questions and concerns responding to the RRC’s Town Hall meeting and the unfolding narrative on the history of slavery in relation to the College. We especially encourage students to contribute their perspectives. Comments will be compiled and presented in a future article, though we also invite members of the Jewell community to write independent, long-form letters to our editors. To contribute, please e-mail us at monitor@william.jewell.edu. 

Images of RRC PowerPoint slides courtesy of Rodney Smith, who provided a copy of his presentation to the Hilltop Monitor. Image of incoming freshman year demographics provided by Eric Blair.

“Senate’s role will be bringing together a wide bureau of opinions and perspectives that students have, and then using myself as an outlet for those opinions to be heard,” said Student Senate president, Zak Carroll, sophomore Oxbridge institutions and policy major. As leader of Student Senate, Carroll prioritizes student perspectives and liberties in Senate’s policies and agendas.

“So as far as actual actions go, I’ll be more looking at what are areas in alcohol policy and parking ticket policy – and different areas in school policy – what are realistic places we can make a change and then once those opportunities come out, how can we leverage it for a compromise for students’ interest.”

The Student Senate is comprised of five senators from each class, four members of cabinet and an advisor, Sara Bailey. Senators are held to the standard of interacting with and representing their peers so as to better determine what the best steps forward will be for the campus. The recent first-years’ senator election had over 70% turnout for voting, an encouraging statistic to the goal of increasing participation.

“I was a little disappointed that 6/7 candidates were males, because I don’t think that’s representative of the first-year class,” said Carroll. The senate will consider these anomalies when taking stances on student matters. “We haven’t all shared the same experiences, so our goal will be to combat perceptions that would be negative and also ensure that a multitude of experiences are represented within each area of Senate.”

Student body participation is crucial to Senate, without which a republic representation cannot function accurately and effectively. This participation can be in the form of attending Senate-hosted events and giving feedback to representatives via surveys and senators. Last year’s Senate Communications Committee has evolved into the Student Outreach Committee aimed at achieving open, comfortable, transparent communication.

“It’s whenever we feel comfortable that we’re able to bloom and flourish and become leaders ourselves,” said Carroll.

With student feedback and opinions, the Senate plans to band together to address policy issues. Such actions were attempted last spring when the campus was still a restricted smoke and tobacco campus. Carroll’s cabinet prioritized expansion of tobacco zones in their campaign platform and, once elected, submitted their recommendations to the administration. Over the summer, William Jewell College became a completely smoke and tobacco-free campus.

“At the end of the day, you either have to have something of value or have to have a want from the administration for any policy to change; neither of those things were present in this instance,” said Carroll, who thought the changes to the policy were an impediment on student liberties.

The senate does not necessarily plan to drop the tobacco issue entirely,  due to the circumstances where some upperclassmen came to Jewell with no expectations of this policy. Having already developed an addiction, these students now face penalization instead of medical aid to overcome the addiction. Carroll advocates for helping fellow citizens of the Jewell community with healthy aids for their addiction.

As the senate aims to aid the individuals of Jewell and band together as a community, Carroll predicts a path of attainable student interest.

“As a student body, if we all get on board with things, that’s going to have a lot more pressure on administration whenever we really want to use that political capital,” said Carroll. “We’ve done a really good job so far of connecting to other leaders on campus and building a community of ‘we the students,’ a union-type mindset, if you will.”

In particular, this political capital is being built for potential amendments to the alcohol policy. The alcohol policy has been a topic on the Senate floor for a few years and is still undergoing fermentation. The extensive amendment process is not one that the senate can easily accomplish without the collaborative assistance of students. What concerns senate is not only the restrictions of policies, but some of the underlying factors as well.

“You never know the intent of people, but the perception that you’re just doubling alcohol fines – or whatever they did to them over the summer – the perception that you’re just increasing them and then becoming stricter on them is worrisome,” said Carroll. “It makes it seem as if it’s more for a monetary thing.”

Alcohol violations are not the only citations with increased fines. Parking tickets are more expensive at Jewell than they are in the city of Liberty. Carroll is concerned that the increased monetary compensations are, or are perceived to be, a higher priority than other issues on campus.

If he could reform one aspect of William Jewell College, it would be to shed the dichotomy between liberal academia and conservative policies for they simply do not coexist well. Instead, Carroll would advocate for implementing student life policies that are compatible to the school’s teachings.

“The students are allowed to have their own opinions and make their own choices so long as it’s not harming another or the work of another, and I think that there is a great sense of that academic freedom on campus, which makes us great. I don’t think that students feel they can make reasonable choices – choices that may be detrimental to them – but that nevertheless they are willing to accept the consequences and responsibilities,” said Carroll. “[Students] don’t see that they can have that same freedom in their personal decisions without interference by Student Life.”

Aside from reading J.S. Mill, Carroll thinks the alcohol policy is one of the obvious applications in the pursuit of ending this dichotomy. Student liberties, enduring comradery and participation are among the foundation of Student Senate’s agenda as they lead the student body into another year. Students can reach out to their senators or attend any of the open Student Senate meetings held at 6:30 on Tuesday evenings if they would like to share their voice and views with Jewell’s student government.