Recently, several Jewell students have spearheaded projects critiquing aspects of life on the Hill and calling for change. In the last few years, we saw students challenge William Jewell College’s whitewashing of the history of campus buildings with the Slavery, Memory, and Justice project (SMJP), which eventually culminated in Jewell’s gesture of racial reconciliation and an examination of the role of slavery in Jewell’s past. Currently, Jewell is undergoing a lot of changes as a result of the recent declaration of financial exigency, and students have stepped up to demand openness throughout this process as well.

The focus of this article, however, is even more recent. Last semester, a group of students presented their findings of racial bias in the dorm lottery process, as well as detailing inadequate living conditions, particularly in Browning Hall. One of those students, Jacob Tetlow, has worked as an RA in Melrose Hall for several semesters. During this semester’s Duke Colloquium, he co-presented a further project about the Jewell experience, mentioning specific ways students’ lives could be improved by the college’s administration. 

This project was presented as a set with Mason Sullivan’s Black Freedom Struggle Symposium documentary, which addressed similar themes. While Mason highlighted the ability of Jewell’s small size to produce a tight-knit community, the stellar faculty we have the privilege of learning with, and the excellent academics, he found that Jewell has a need for more diversity and cultural knowledge within the student body. “I think in order for Jewell’s administration to improve on their recruitment practices and acknowledgement of different cultural groups they need to do more to have other cultures feel accepted on campus,” Mason stated in an interview with the Hilltop Monitor. “Recruiting students from different backgrounds is a good place to start, and over my last four years here I have been seeing major improvements in the amount of diversity I see on campus.” 

While the documentary maintains a mostly upbeat tone, Mason does acknowledge that it is “[a glimpse] into the reality of the school, not just what gets advertised, and … a critique and a call to action for administrators to see how the students feel on certain things and what that means for the future of the college.” As Jewell goes through changes, students have consistently stepped up to share their opinions and insights with administration, and call leadership to action on certain issues that affect the student body but may not be felt by higher-ups. Students often put themselves in a tenuous position by calling out the institution at which they are studying, so it is extremely important to maintain an accepting environment during this process. 

For the most part, Jewell has provided that accepting environment. Mason Sullivan noted that the response to his project was overwhelmingly positive, and that “the president of the college [then-interim president Susan Chambers] at that time came up to [him] afterwards to tell [him] how much she enjoyed it and asked what she could do to help” after his first presentation of the documentary at the Black Freedom Struggle Symposium. Mason also told the Monitor that Jewell faculty, staff, and students were nothing but supportive, expressing gratitude “for the support I got from faculty like Dr. Howard, [College chaplain] Rev. Dowling, and [admissions counselor] Will Palmer who were adamant to get this story to the people who needed to see it.”

Jacob Tetlow also recalls that “everybody that I’ve interacted with on the admin side that has talked to me about the presentation, it’s been like what you’d expect from critical thinking college,” denying that he faced difficulties from the college during the research and presentation process. However, academic freedom concerns have surfaced, especially within Jacob’s RA role and his ties to Student Life.

Mistakes Made, Mistakes Corrected 

On Apr. 17, the Student Life department informed Melrose RA Jacob Tetlow that he would not be returning to his position for the 2026-2027 school year.

When he scheduled an Apr. 22 meeting with Student Life asking why he was removed from his position, Student Life, represented by Greek Life coordinator Ryan West and Assistant Dean of Students Jennifer Herzog, originally gave two reasons. The first was that he had been too lenient regarding “room switching” in Melrose. Melrose is the only suite-style dorm not part of Greek row. Jacob told the Hilltop Monitor that “[t]o get into Melrose, you have to apply to be in a lottery, and these people wanted specific roommates and stuff, and so they just wanted to ensure that their team could make it into Melrose and then they sorted it amongst themselves afterwards.” Since Tetlow did not have the authority to unilaterally switch student rooms, he told the students that they needed to talk to Student Life. Tetlow confirms that this incident was not brought up to him until the meeting in which he was let go.

The second was that Student Life believed Tetlow had not followed the proper “chain of command” on the Browning Project he conducted last year. The project uncovered evidence of racial disparities in Jewell housing; the percentage of Black students living in Browning Hall, seen as one of the worst-quality dorms by residential students, was substantially higher than other dorms. (According to project data, about 30% of Browning residents are Black, compared with approximately 10% in Mathes, Eaton, Melrose, and Jones.) As part of the project, the team interviewed then-Dean of Students Ernie Stufflebean, Vice President of Marketing, Enrollment and Student Life Eric Blair, and others to obtain critical residential data for use in their project. 

According to Tetlow, Student Life stated that the project’s results made some College employees uneasy; Tetlow claimed that “[they] didn’t tell me who else, but [a Student Life staff member] did say that other people were made uncomfortable by that presentation that we gave, and it pushed buttons.” In a request for comment, College administrators confirmed to the Hilltop Monitor that “it was reported to leadership that a staff member’s personal opinion or response to Jacob’s research was shared and influenced decision-making to some extent.”

YikYak exploded with the news, to the point that peers in classes were asking about what was going on. On the night of April 21—twelve hours before Tetlow and colleagues presented a different documentary about campus community at Duke Colloquium—Jacob received a text from Eric Blair asking to meet with himself, President Drew Van Horn, and the Vice President for Academic Affairs (VPAA) Keli Braitman, who was present to resolve concerns about academic freedom. The meeting took place at noon on Duke Colloquium, and in it Tetlow was offered his position back. 

College administrators told the Hilltop Monitor that “In consultation with the President, Dr. Van Horn, VPAA, Dr. Braitman, and VPEM, Mr. Blair, Assistant Dean of Students and Director of Residence Life, Ms. Jennifer Herzog invited Jacob to stay on staff. Dr. Van Horn, Dr. Braitman, and Mr. Blair met with Jacob and a faculty advisor [who Jacob confirmed was Dr. Groninger in History] to discuss the circumstances and to assure him of his place on staff.” Dr. Braitman, vice president for academic affairs, told Jacob of her concerns that the incident represented “a violation of [his] academic integrity, and that’s one of the reasons we want to rectify it.”

Tetlow noted that he was “fired and reinstated” within the span of a week, suggesting that the College immediately recognized its error and reversed course.

Next Steps: Student Advocacy

Posts on YikYak, the anonymous campuswide social media app, were overwhelmingly supportive of Jacob and critical of the college’s decision not to rehire him as an RA. The anonymous users described him as caring, selfless and deeply committed to students. One post argued that not rehiring Jacob (JT)¹ over his study was “crazy” and accused the school of avoiding uncomfortable data. One user wrote that “[Tetlow] literally embodies who Jewell thinks they represent,” praising his service work, leadership and willingness to stand up for his beliefs. Another called him “the best RA I’ve ever had” and said he was being punished for “being a voice for the people.”One post claimed he had “done more things for Jewell than any RA has done.”

According to Jacob the YikYak reaction changed everything. “The reason that, like, I think I got this meeting … is because [of] the YikYak stuff,” he said in an interview.

The Aftermath: Academic Freedom At Jewell

This incident on its own has some disconcerting implications. However, this is not the only incident in recent Jewell memory in which the college has reacted negatively to a research organization investigating race relations on William Jewell’s campus. Back in 2020, a group of students at Jewell formed what they called the Slavery, Memory, and Justice Project (SMJP), which sought to explore the history of slavery in Clay County and how slavery shaped the early days of the college. This group, led by then-professor Dr. Christopher Wilkins, performed a deep scholarly exploration of the historical record, highlighting the lives of slaves in the community that surrounded Jewell’s campus and the pro-slavery views of Alexander Doniphan and other key figures in Jewell’s history. The SMJP received significant media and academic attention, with both the Hilltop Monitor and other KC-area news organizations discussing the SMJP’s efforts.

What made the SMJP’s work even more noteworthy is how little institutional support the SMJP had at the college. The SMJP’s official website, and many of the articles written about their work, highlight an extensive list of allegations that college leadership systematically restricted the ability of SMJP students to conduct research and discredited their work. The Pitch KC’s article on the subject portrays the relationship between the institution and the SMJP as tense, describing how the college refused to invite Dr. Wilkins or SMJP members to key meetings, refused to let the SMJP use the college archives, and used some of the SMJP’s findings without proper credit in their own historical accounts. The Pitch’s article further includes an email, sent by then-president Elizabeth MacLeod Walls, in which she asserted that “it is the sole responsibility of the Commission [a College-affiliated research team] to determine what is true.”

After the controversy surrounding the SMJP, Jewell created two key task forces to explore what happened between the SMJP and the college and to examine academic freedom policy at Jewell more broadly. The first was a special assignment for the Faculty Council, who were tasked with exploring the specific violations of academic freedom alleged by the SMJP. The second was the Student Academic Freedom Task Force to examine the state of academic freedom at Jewell and create a list of proposals for improving Jewell’s policies as regards student research. The student task force, which operated for around a month at the end of the 2022-2023 academic year, produced a list of proposals for amending Jewell’s policy library. 

While both of these groups generated their own conclusions on the question of academic freedom at Jewell and shared their conclusions with college administration, none of their conclusions were ever released publicly despite requests by the Hilltop Monitor and other student organizations. It is therefore unclear if any of their recommendations were actually adopted by the college or not. 

The SMJP’s case is troubling, but it is important to remember that the college’s leadership has changed substantially since 2022, and the administration’s response to the current incident has been more promising. In their comments to the Monitor, College administrators emphasized that policy changes would result from this incident. When asked what the administration learned from the incident, Dr. Van Horn told the Monitor that

In my seventeen years as a college President, I have learned that there are best practices that every college should follow. In my eight months as interim president at Jewell, I have noted that many of these best practices were not in place. I have directed these practices to be implemented at Jewell. First and foremost is the training of faculty and staff regarding behavior expectations for all Jewell employees. Thus, we are beginning a significant annual training program that all employees must complete. When an employee violates one of these expectations, we intervene, educate, and, if necessary, take corrective action. In short, the administration has learned that it has not done a good job of educating employees of these expectations and intervening as soon as possible when one has been violated. (emphasis added)

The administration’s willingness to reinstate Jacob as an RA is a good sign that college leadership is more concerned about academic freedom and research at Jewell than they have been previously. While Jewell still has work to do in order to rebuild students’ trust in their handling of academic freedom concerns, the administration’s immediate and unequivocal decision to reinstate Jacob is certainly a step in the right direction.

Conclusions

Thankfully, this incident has a happy ending. Jewell students and faculty, when we band together, have significant power to cause change, even in administrative decisions which we often think of as disconnected from the student body. In an interview, Jacob Tetlow recalled that one of the main reasons the VPAA cited for reinstating him was that it seemed like he was “wanted as an RA here outside of just that one individual’s decision.” He also noted conversations in his classes that led to student advocacy on his behalf, specifically highlighting support from peer Sara Polovina and professor Dr. Gary Armstrong. This in-person advocacy, as well as online advocacy via YikYak, influenced the decision to bring Jacob back as an RA next year. Jacob went on to say that 

I think, you know, it is that advocation from so many people around Jewell, so many people saying that’s uncomfortable, I don’t feel comfortable with that, that’s not right. This school has been pushing us for a long time, it seems like now, and we’re not gonna let them push past the fundamental values that built this school. […] I think that’s what enraged and embroiled a lot of people to actually do something.

We hope Jewell listens to student concerns and continues to take academic freedom seriously in the future. For example, the Student Life department itself is not well funded and is experiencing a lot of staff turnover. Jacob noted within the interview that “Student Life has really been trying, especially since Ryan got there, to kind of be the unit in the admin that melds … cliques, that provides an opportunity for people to meet together as a group and build a community outside their individual interests. And I think that Ryan is really, really trying hard for that. And I don’t know if she’s necessarily fully supported. And now that we’re losing a lot of RAs, she’s definitely … going to be less supported next year.”

While student advocacy still has a long way to go, we have hope that college administration will continue to act quickly and address student concerns, protecting academic freedom and providing a safe space for Jewell students to express their thoughts about their college experience.

“We’re not just going to be able to solve it overnight, if we’re going to be able to solve it at all without tearing something to the ground, like a building. For my part in the presentation and in the documentary, I really wanted to provide a framing where people could actively do stuff to make that thing better. And really, it boiled down to just being able to see, you know, it sounds corny, but like your classmates having fun and smiling around campus and it’s like, okay, well, I want to go and do that too.” – Jacob

1. YikYak does not permit names on its platform; instead, all references to names must use the individual’s initials. ︎

Photo by William Jewell College via The Hilltop Monitor photo library.

The Spring 2025 term has brought with it the announcement of academic, athletic, and personnel changes to William Jewell College. The Hilltop Monitor has written two articles about these changes already, discussing William Jewell College’s Dec. 5, 2024 declaration of financial exigency and Feb. 3, 2025 restructuring announcement. 

This third article is an investigative deep dive into the details of the changes, including interviews with many students, faculty and administrators. It focuses on the broader implications of the recent changes at the College.

We’ve provided headings and section overviews to help readers navigate the long-form article that follows. A list of supplemental primary documents is also provided here and includes: the Dec. 5, 2024 declaration of exigency; the Feb. 3, 2025 divisional restructuring announcement; the Mar. 25 memo to students regarding the Core; selections from the Mar. 28 administrative response to Hilltop questions; and the Apr. 22 announcement of changes to the Spanish program.

The Hilltop Monitor hopes that this article is informative. Please reach out to our team with any additional questions or information.

This story is developing.

Academic Changes

This section: Outlining of the new academic divisions – Core Curriculum changes – Program cuts – Interviews with faculty and students – Oxbridge honors program

Outlining of the new academic divisions

Following William Jewell’s declaration of financial exigency and restructuring of programs, academic changes to William Jewell College primarily consist of the creation of five new Academic Divisions and cuts to several programs. Students were informed of the creation of these divisions in an email from the president on Feb. 3. While students have come to know which division their program will be in, full details were somewhat elusive. Jewell administrators informed The Hilltop Monitor via email on Mar. 28 that majors were being divided as follows:

1. Analytical Sciences contains digital science and technology fields. A full list of majors in this division includes Computer Science (CSC), Cybersecurity (CYB), Data Science, Engineering, the new Information Technology major (ITS), Mathematics, and Physics.
2. Business and Communication contains exactly what it says: Accounting, the various Business majors and emphases (all under course prefix BUS), Communication and its various emphases, Digital Media Communication, Economics, and the graduate entrepreneurial MBA program.
3. Community Engagement and Applied Arts takes on the nursing, music, and education programs, including their overlaps. A full list of majors here includes Nursing, Elementary Education, Music (with emphases), Music Education, Music Studies, Secondary Education, and two graduate programs: the M.A. in Teaching, and the M.S. in Curriculum and Instruction.
4. Culture, Society, and Justice covers the humanities: English, History, Spanish*, Philosophy, and Political Science.
5. Natural and Behavioral Sciences covers biochemistry, biology, chemistry, and psychology.

Administrators say these changes are meant to “generate many new cross-collaborations” and “[adapt] programs to align with student demand to enhance relevancy.” However, it is not clear how these changes will enhance relevancy, given that courses are still listed with subject prefixes, not divisional prefixes. 

Course offerings for Fall 2025 are largely similar to previous years, although many departments are not listing courses for first year students. A notable exception is the Culture, Society, and Justice division, which lists two courses for first years on “being human” and “justice” (CSJ 110 and 120, respectively).

The Hilltop Monitor was able to talk to Dr. Sara Morrison, the new division head for Culture, Society, and Justice (CSJ) and ongoing associate dean for the Core Curriculum, about the changes students can expect to see. She told us via email that:

“As of Fall 2025, [Culture, Society, and Justice will] offer three majors—Literature and Culture; History; and Political Science and Philosophy (PSP)—and minors in Ancient Mediterranean Studies, Black Studies, Faith and Culture, and Spanish. We will also continue to offer the Pre-Law emphasis. Current students will be able to graduate with their declared primary majors. All CSJ majors will take 4 interdisciplinary courses at the Foundational Level on Being Human, Justice, Gods and Faiths, and Social Change, then a series of courses specific to their chosen major, followed by an interdisciplinary Capstone course. Next Fall, we are looking forward to designing more interdisciplinary minors and expanding our H-Lab offerings.” 

As of now it remains unclear what these newly structured majors will look like in terms of new classes and graduation requirements. And, as further explained below, it is now clear that CSJ (and the College) will no longer offer a major in Spanish to incoming students.

Jewell administrators also seek to build new programs, citing the “early success” of the new Computer Science and Cybersecurity programs. The College neither provided evidence of these programs’ success nor identified programs it could launch with existing resources.

Current students with multiple majors may experience changes in some but not all of their majors. A notable section of these is Education students, some of whom are required to have a primary major in the subject they plan to teach. To clarify this situation, we reached out to Associate Professor of Education and Chair Dr. Michael Stoll.

Dr. Stoll told us that while changes are being made to primary majors, education majors’ education coursework is determined by the State of Missouri, which sets requirements for teacher certification. As such, the requirements for Elementary Education majors will not change, since “the majority of the program’s requirements are mandated by the State of Missouri.”

Secondary education majors are required to have their first major in the subject they want to teach. This means that while their education coursework may not change, their subject-matter coursework might. Given this, the education department is working to “ensure that all teacher certification requirements can still be met within or alongside the newly reimagined majors.” Secondary Education majors should still be able to accomplish the necessary courses for certification, but may experience different requirements as faculty navigate the changes. The ramifications of these changes for new students are unclear.

The Hilltop Monitor also reached out to the nursing department for clarification. In an interview, Dr. Leesa McBroom, chair of nursing, explained that nursing is now part of a newly formed academic division with Music and Education, noting that although this combination may seem odd, all three fields “serve the broader community in direct and meaningful ways” and are held to strict national and state-level accreditation standards. She emphasized that while this restructuring is administrative, it is designed “to help our department thrive—not to alter the core of what makes Jewell Nursing strong.” 

Class sizes will remain steady at 30 to 36 students in nursing, despite a nationwide decline in nursing admissions, especially in the Midwest, which Dr. McBroom described as “a serious challenge.” Jewell will continue to offer a full range of nursing courses, although there may be more hybrid and flexible learning options in the future, particularly for accelerated students. Clinical placements, she noted, will continue to influence course scheduling based on hospital and clinic availability.

Dr. McBroom expressed excitement about new interdisciplinary collaborations, saying, “Together, I believe we can create powerful, interdisciplinary learning experiences.” However, she voiced concern about public perception, hoping the community understands that Jewell is “moving forward with intention and care,” rather than simply reacting to challenges. Ultimately, she affirmed her confidence in Jewell’s future, saying she believes the College will emerge from financial exigency stronger and better positioned for long-term success.

Changing the Core

In a memo to students on Mar. 25, Associate Dean for the Core Curriculum Dr. Sara Morrison informed students that the core curriculum requirements were being overhauled as part of academic restructuring efforts. Three significant changes were made to the core curriculum.

First, Core math and writing requirements were overhauled. The memo noted that there are two new requirements in level one: “Writing in the Disciplines (WID)” and “Quantitative Reasoning (QR).” The timeline for this change was not specified. CTI 102 Written Communication and CTI 105 Math for the Liberal Arts, the courses that were supplanted by these new requirements, are still on the FA25 online course schedule. As of the time of writing, there are no courses labelled online as satisfying the “WID” or “QR” requirements.

Second, CTI level II exemptions were waived. Students previously could not enroll in a Level II course covered by their major. (For example, Nursing students did not have to take a Science and Technology course.) This exemption has been removed. Students now have to take three level II courses in different subject areas, although now this can include their major subject.

Finally, the Diversity requirement was eliminated. While CTI 150 Identity and Society is still required, courses are no longer labelled DU (Diversity US) or DG (Diversity Global). Morrison notes that “even though [the diversity] requirement has been eliminated, students will still take courses in the Core with a focus on diversity in a range of ways.”

Below is a list of all of the new core requirements:

• CTI 100, 150, WID or 102, QR
• World Language requirement for BA students, up to 112
• CTI level 2: 3 different Level 2 areas, with no exemptions based on majors
• CTI capstone

Program Cuts

First round of cuts

The Feb. 3 announcement from interim President Chambers also informed students that several programs were being cut, including Nonprofit Leadership, Integrated Healthcare, Theatre, the Honors Institute in Critical Thinking, and the Cardinal Sound athletic band. For detailed information about the effects of these cuts, check this previous article from the Hilltop team.

In short, the College will not be recruiting new students into these majors, but is still required to enable current students to graduate. This can be done with teach-out arrangements, but any arrangement made must be in compliance with Higher Learning Commission guidelines.

Regarding faculty cuts, College administrators informed us that determinations on which programs to cut aimed to “ensur[e] relevance and [maintain] excellence for students, employers and the community long into the future.” The Hilltop inquired about specificities of the methodology of the Financial Exigency Management Committee (FEMC) as it pertained to decision-making and faculty layoffs. We were told that the FEMC was made up of six faculty members, two administrators, and one trustee, but College administrators declined to comment on FEMC methodology.

Spanish Major Discontinued

This first announcement of program cuts on Feb. 3 would not be the only one. On Apr. 22, Chair of Languages and Professor of Spanish Dr. David Lisenby informed Spanish students via email that the FEMC had chosen to “discontinue the Spanish major.” 

Lisenby confirmed to Hilltop that Spanish was not listed in the first round of academic program cuts because Spanish is “continuing in a new form as part of the Literature & Culture major.” At the same time, Lisenby noted that the new Literature and Culture major “is not a Spanish major, and the Spanish major as it exists is indeed being phased out on the recommendation of the FEMC.” 

Despite the phasing out of the Spanish major, the Spanish minor will still be available to current and incoming students. SPA 111/112 (Elementary Spanish I/II) will continue to be offered, too, so students can still study Spanish and use it to satisfy their Core Curriculum BA world language requirement.

Lisenby is confident that Spanish will continue at Jewell due to high demand. Upper-level courses currently “[have] healthy enrollment,” and Lisenby “look[s] forward to continuing to offer Spanish courses (and programs) to support students’ Spanish language learning in conjunction with study of culture, literature, society, history, and all the many dimensions [Spanish courses address].” 

The Hilltop has learned that Professor of Spanish and Hilltop Faculty Advisor Dr. Robert Wells will not be returning to Jewell in Fall 2025. His contract was not renewed by the College as a result of the FEMC’s decision to effectively eliminate the Spanish major. Wells, a tenured professor and former languages department chair who has taught in SPA and CTI at WJC since 2015, is within the group of Jewell faculty that are being laid off. While Wells did not provide extensive comments to the Hilltop, he expressed feeling “profoundly angry, anxious and sad in regard to the elimination of both [his] long-held position and the Spanish major.” 

Comments from Faculty and Students 

The Hilltop reached out to other professors in programs that were cut to determine the justifications, processes, and timeframes for the cuts. Dr. Tom Vansaghi, director of the Nonprofit Leadership program and a tenured professor who started teaching at WJC in 2015, told the Hilltop that his discussions about which program(s) might be cut began with Business Chair Dr. Kelli Schutte in Aug. 2024, four months before the College officially declared financial exigency. Vansaghi was officially informed of Nonprofit Leadership’s removal in Jan. 2025. 

The Hilltop has separately been notified that, while other academic program cuts and faculty layoffs were similarly communicated to faculty in late Jan. 2025, many faculty members were taken by complete surprise with regard to FEMC decisions, cuts, terminations, etc. As mentioned in a previous Hilltop article, approximately 20-30% of the overall WJC faculty (tenured and non-tenured) have been terminated as part of the financial exigency process. A complete list of faculty layoffs has not yet been made public.

Dr. Vansaghi, as cited in his own words, “knew it was highly likely that [Nonprofit Leadership] would be discontinued” due to the program’s low enrollment, but continued to put his all into everything he taught. Nonprofit Leadership students, he said, are “extremely motivated, intelligent and called to do amazing things in their lives.”  

When asked to reflect on the personal and professional impact of the College’s decision to eliminate the Nonprofit Leadership department, Dr. Vansaghi stated the following:

“I went through the stages of grief—it was painful and deeply heartbreaking. For over a decade, I poured my heart into teaching courses in Nonprofit Leadership. That’s why it’s been difficult to understand why more students haven’t chosen it as their major, minor, or as a calling. Today’s students are incredibly driven to make a difference in the world, so it’s puzzling—and honestly disheartening—that this path didn’t resonate more widely. In reflecting on this, I can’t help but hold myself accountable. Perhaps I didn’t communicate the quality, the rigor, or the importance of this work as clearly or compellingly as I needed to. Given the painfully low number of students who chose this path, I understand why my position was no longer sustainable. It feels like a profound personal and professional failure, and that’s incredibly difficult to sit with. While I accept the outcome, it’s not because I lacked passion or effort—I poured everything I had into this work. Still, the results didn’t reflect the vision I held so dearly. In that sense, I recognize that it’s time for change, even if it breaks my heart.”

Students also spoke favorably of the Nonprofit Leadership program, in spite of the College’s decision to eliminate it. Former NPL student Ryan West told us that “Dr. Vansaghi’s Introduction to Nonprofit Leadership course opened my knowledge of servitude, vocation and ethical standards in leadership [… It] offered me insight into my personal future that I didn’t know I needed — how my deepest gladness can help the world’s deepest need. Nonprofit[s are] not only helpful, but rather essential to our societies and their functions, and delving into the depths of this servitude will always impact my future decisions as a leader in my community.”

Ian Wooldridge, another graduating senior, emphasized the “direct, real-world experience” that Nonprofit Leadership brought him, citing practical work with local nonprofits. He further specified that the NPL skillset brought significant value across his personal and professional life: “Studying nonprofit leadership helped equip me with additional tools and resources to utilize as a Greek leader, where I learned to manage a small nonprofit as a college student. I often treated the nonprofit classrooms I was in as consulting workshops for my fraternity and then applied what I learned.”

Dr. Vansaghi shared his hope that “students at William Jewell [would not] lose faith in this great institution.” He concluded, “To my faculty colleagues, the administration, and the students—it has been an honor to walk alongside you. I offer my heartfelt farewell and deepest gratitude for the countless ways this journey has enriched my life. The experience has been profoundly meaningful, shaped by shared purpose, intellectual curiosity, and a genuine sense of community. I leave with enduring hope and sincere wishes for the College’s continued strength, impact, and vitality for the next 175 years and beyond.”

The Hilltop also reached out to Nathan Wyman, professor of theatre and director of theatre and dance, to discuss the dismantling of theatre majors and minors. Wyman, also a tenured professor, has taught at Jewell for 27 years, since 1998. He attended Jewell for his undergraduate degree as well, completing a BA in studio art in 1995. Though Wyman is disappointed at the removal of the theatre majors, he feels confident that Jewell Theatre Company will continue to exist. Wyman explained that certain elements of Jewell Theatre are set to continue: 

“The College will continue to recruit students for Theatre Talent Award Scholarships and will support producing a fall and spring play (or musical) each year. The scholarship students will be required to participate in one or both productions each year depending on their scholarship level. Academic credit will be offered for students participating in the productions much like students who take credit for Choir or Band. They will register for 0-1 credit hours and will receive a grade at the end of each semester. These courses are now listed in Self Service as THE 225 Theatre Performance and THE 226 Theatre Production. 

I have accepted a staff position beginning August 1 that will allow me to continue to produce the plays with the support of a guest stage director and students will have opportunities to design and produce technical elements of the shows (much like we did this year). A few shows are already in consideration for next year’s theatre season. (My staff position will include other new responsibilities that I cannot share until the contract is complete, but I am truly excited about the opportunities the college administration plans to entrust me with).” 

In addition, Professor Wyman assured us that all current theatre students will be able to graduate with their intended major, whether that is through Jewell or not. He stated, “Dr. Coleman, chair of performing arts, and I have worked with theatre and musical theatre majors on ‘teach out’ plans to find ways they can complete their degrees at Jewell. Some have taken advantage of this, and others have made plans to transfer or take a gap year.” 

While Wyman is “torn about the [College’s] decision to discontinue the theatre and musical theatre majors, the support of the College to keep the production aspects of the program going leaves [him] optimistic that there is a commitment to keeping the arts alive at Jewell.”

Along with the many Jewell faculty members whose positions have been eliminated by the FEMC and the College, and those that will be retiring at the end of the Spring 2025 term, some professors will be leaving Jewell of their own accord for jobs elsewhere. For example, Dr. Anthony Maglione, director of choral studies and professor of music, music education and Oxbridge music, will be departing Jewell to act as director of choral studies at the University of Houston; he will also be the new director of the Houston Symphony Chorus. Meanwhile, Dr. Lilah Rahn-Lee, chair of biology and associate professor of biology and Oxbridge molecular biology, will assume an assistant professor position at Southern Connecticut State University in Fall 2025. 

The state of the Oxbridge program

Divisional reshuffling and loss of faculty places the Oxbridge Honors program in a peculiar place. Oxbridge majors were not sorted into any of the five new academic divisions, but the Oxbridge program was also not on the list of programs being cut.

Dr. Elizabeth Sperry, senior tutor of the Oxbridge program, told the Hilltop that academic changes to the Oxbridge program “include embedding tutorials in non-Oxbridge classes, replacing comprehensive examinations with thesis projects, and broadening options for students who wish to study on campus during their junior years.” 

Oxbridge’s financial status is also unclear. Prior to the Dec. 2024 declaration of financial exigency, Dr. Sperry and College administrators announced significant funding cuts to the program. In that meeting, Dr. Sperry explained that Oxbridge program funding relied on a gift from the Hall family foundation that has since run out. As a result, Oxbridge students staying at Jewell are not eligible for a Journey Grant to study abroad.

This funding change makes traditional study in the UK at the University of Oxford, the flagship enterprise of the Oxbridge program, difficult if not impossible. With the removal of any Jewell funding, costs of studying abroad for a year at Oxford have risen to be prohibitively expensive. The Oxbridge program has, in the interim, paused recruiting new students to the only remaining WJC honors program.

Changes to Student Experience

This section: Student organizations – Budgeting process uncertainty – Transparency from administrators – Work-study cuts – Federal funding freezes

Budgeting changes may cause cuts in Student Life activities, intramural sports, and student organizations. If budget cuts require the removal of substantial numbers of faculty and staff, then student organizations – important but “non-essential” for the academic functions of a university – may be on the chopping block as well.

Consequently, the Hilltop asked College administrators “what clubs, organizations, and student employment programs [can] expect in terms of funding for Fall 2025.”

The entirety of the administrators’ response is stated below.

“The College will launch its budget process for 2025-2026 this April. It is unclear at this time how funding for each student organization may be impacted. Student organizations are a key part of the Jewell experience, and the College is committed to empowering appropriately with available resources.”

This is a response of uncertainty in a situation where clarity is paramount. It appears that, at present, College administrators cannot guarantee that student organizations will receive any funding for the next academic year. Again, the implications of student organization cuts are unclear.

Student Workers 

Institutional cuts will not affect students enrolled in the federal work study program, since their wages are paid by the Department of Education. Indeed, College administrators confirmed that “the federal work study program will not change.”

With that said, students not eligible for work study may not have success finding College employment, as “campus employment opportunities for workship [paid for by the College itself]… have been limited for some time.”

It is also unlikely that the recent executive order dismantling the Department of Education (ED) will affect the federal work study program. The order calls for the Secretary of Education to, “to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law, take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return authority over education to the States and local communities.” (§2a)

The federal work study program is enshrined in federal law as part of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 USC 28), so it must be protected under federal law. While the effective closure of ED – note that ED was created by an act of Congress and so cannot be eliminated entirely – may affect the overhead of funding, federal law requires the payouts to be made.

The Hilltop will not comment here on whether the executive’s general disregard for the rule of law will affect work study programs.

Athletic Cuts?

This section: Changes to Cardinal Athletics – Lack of program cuts? – Student voices on program cuts

College administrators are also considering the impact of financial changes on Cardinal Athletics. Athletic programs seem largely unaffected by the exigency requirements and reductions made elsewhere, and deputy director of athletics Joel Lueken told the Hilltop that “at this point there will be no changes to the athletic department.”

No programs are being cut at this time, but Cardinal athletes may be less inclined to stay at the College moving forward. College administrators told the Hilltop that “[r]oster sizes, capital expense, scholarship budgets, competition costs and inflation, and divisional alignment [i.e. div. II vs. other options] are all being studied.” It’s unclear when changes to Cardinal Athletics will land, if at all.

While new and incoming recruits will have their athletic scholarships reduced, Leuken and administrators claim there will be no reduction in scholarship for current students. 

Contrary to administrative assurances that Cardinal Athletics remains stable, the experience of one tennis player at William Jewell, who was interviewed by the Hilltop and wished to remain anonymous, reveals the growing concern of some athletes about the future of their sports. While no teams have been officially cut, athletes are navigating an environment marked by uncertainty regarding scholarships, recruiting and team viability. The athlete told us that “the past few months have been extremely stressful,” due to concerns about the lack of clear communication from their coaching team. 

According to the tennis player, only a few scholarship athletes will remain on the women’s tennis team next year, and the coach would only have $8,000 to recruit up to five new players – a sum insufficient in light of rising tuition fees and new limits on scholarships. While scholarships for current student-athletes are not being reduced, the changes affecting new recruits and ongoing financial pressures have raised questions for student-athletes, who wonder if staying at Jewell will allow them to make the most of their college athletic experience.

Leadership and the State of the College

This section: Leadership changes to the College – Departure of Cabinet members and search for Interim President – College commitments to diversity challenged – Budget measures, stability?

We also asked College administrators about the College’s long-term prospects and leadership changes.

Hilltop confirmed the departure of two Cabinet members: Dr. Daniel Jasper, vice president for academic affairs, is leaving to become the provost of Millsaps College in Jackson, Miss.; and Dr. Rodney Smith, vice president for access and engagement, will be leaving the College of his own volition.

Interim President Susan Chambers will continue to serve through May 31, 2025, when her term ends. College administrators confirmed that “the Board is vetting candidates for a new interim President,” but did not provide specific dates for the new interim president’s confirmation. The search for a permanent president is still paused.

Dr. Keli Braitman, professor of psychology and current dean of the faculty, will serve as interim vice president for academic affairs in 2025-26.

The College does not appear to have any intention to replace Dr. Rodney Smith nor establish any office related to equitable representation or diversity, equity, and inclusion. When asked for a justification, College administrators cited “new external forces that the College must navigate as it considers… a community that reflects the world beyond the Hill.” 

When the Hilltop team asked for further elaboration on specific external forces, we were told that “18-year-old high school graduates are declining in number due to birth rates and are expected to do so over the next 15 years across the Midwest… Over 90% of the total learner population at Jewell right now consists of this declining demographic.”

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs are increasingly under fire in American universities, as the US government has withdrawn federal grant funding from many top universities that have these programs. College administrators at WJC are nominally “committed to [College] values of authentic engagement and inclusive communities,” although they made no further attempt to specify their commitment to representation.

We also asked administrators about the state of the College. In the short term, Jewell will remain open in 2025-26. Jewell also intends to maintain an expense budget of $30 million through 2027-28, although its ability to achieve this is unclear. Form 990 data tells us that Jewell’s FY2023 expenses totalled $53 million, and previous College correspondence told students that current budget reduction measures lessened this figure by $12 million (implying a current expense budget of $41 million). College administrators did not specify how they intended to reconcile these figures.

College administrators also plan to increase “annual student-based revenue” by four to five million dollars. This increase would not come as a result of tuition hikes. College administrators told us that “we cannot just increase tuition and fees substantially year-over-year.” Instead, the College aims to create “new programs that attract different learners;” admin cited the new Entrepreneurial MBA program as a potential source for student revenue.

Student Perspectives 

This section: Student survey – Results from WJC students – Student concerns unresolved – Lingering uncertainty

Before Jewell announced the decision to adopt financial exigency on Dec. 5, 2024, The Hilltop Monitor conducted a survey open to the student body. The survey included multiple-choice and free-form questions aimed to reveal student opinions about Jewell’s financial and policy decisions along with the greater situation, which, at the time, was intended to be used for an opinion-based editorial by Hilltop writer Naomi Speck. The survey was conducted between Oct. 23-30, 2024, and we received sixty responses from WJC students.

More than half of the participants offered a free-form statement response when asked if there was anything else they’d like to note. The responses largely consisted of several primary concerns from current WJC students, including: high tuition costs; excessive fees; unaddressed infrastructure, maintenance and pest issues; lack of transparency / poor communication from College administration; and investments in projects students believed were unnecessary compared to more pressing concerns (e.g The Link). Many students also expressed at the time that they were at least considering the possibility of transferring from Jewell–though in regard to the survey’s section on financial hardship for students. 

In an unpublished Hilltop opinion piece that was set to accompany the survey results, staff writer Speck stated the following: 

“Jewell students don’t feel that the way decisions are currently being made is conducive to the longevity of William Jewell College, and it sometimes seems that administration is working under different principles than officially stated. We are told [by administration] that removing paper towel dispensers is ‘going green.’ We are told that the Health Center was the ‘Cadillac of college healthcare’ and that it’s reasonable to leave us with telehealth for the same fee. We are told that the removal of financial aid for a junior year overseas is an ‘evolution in the Oxbridge program.’ We are told that according to some policy we signed, the administration is within its rights to fine everyone within a residence hall for one person’s possible vandalism. But [administrators] can’t regain students’ trust without real, tangible results, without caring about us as people and showing us that you are listening to our concerns and doing your best to meet us where we are. Administration may hold the power in terms of financial decisions, but the goal of a nonprofit college should be to support its students, and we do not feel that enough effort is being put towards this objective.”

While gathering administrative responses on the article’s content, the college’s decision to declare financial exigency was announced. Given the sudden change of situation and newfound transparency that many students were awaiting, both The Hilltop Monitor staff and the author of the editorial decided not to publish the article at that time. However, the team believes that the aforementioned concerns of students gathered in our prior research are still relevant to lingering feelings among the student body and help contextualize the perspectives of students both prior to and following the institution’s public declaration of financial exigency.

Interviews with current students confirm this sense of dissonance. Ivan Calderon is a third-year student at Jewell majoring in Musical Theatre and English. On Apr. 28th, 2025, Ivan explained to the Hilltop how the recent changes at the College have impacted his education and also elaborated on the lingering uncertainty:

“I’m a double major [Musical Theatre and English], so I’m fortunate to have at least one of my programs still standing for the most part. With that said, to say things plainly and without a lot of context for these decisions, the theatre program was cut and [other considerable changes have been made to the English department].

Things are very uncertain, and I have no idea what support the theatre department will receive from the school after this semester. I also worry that the professors within the English department will be overworked with having to shoulder [an extra burden] within the program. [Long-time English Professor Dr. Mark Walters is retiring at the end of the 2024-25 academic year.] I’m aware that this response is emotional. I have no intention to fear-monger. 

All I hope is that the performing arts department still has the ability and resources to produce performances on our campus next semester, and that my professors are looked after.”

Closing Thoughts

While William Jewell College has been a thriving institution for over 175 years, its future is now in jeopardy due to its current financial crisis. The ongoing restructuring efforts related to financial exigency, while aimed at making the college more sustainable in the long run, have caused significant stress for the overwhelming majority of students and have led to the layoff of a significant number of cherished Jewell faculty members—along with the loss of helpful and much-appreciated staff as well. 

Despite the difficulties experienced by the Jewell community over the past few months, the administration maintains that William Jewell College will continue to offer an outstanding academic experience. The upcoming 2025–2026 academic year will be a crucial test for Jewell, however, as the future of many key academic programs, student organizations—including this very publication—and the College itself remains unclear and may be subject to further substantial financial cuts.

On Apr. 7, under the authorization of Gary Armstrong, interim vice president of academic affairs, Student Senate created a Student Academic Freedom Task Force. This task force, composed entirely of students, will propose amendments to the academic freedom section of the Charter of Students’ Rights and Responsibilities.

Members of this task force are: Aubrey Avalos, Student Senate commissioner for student athletics and junior international relations and political science major; Agatha Echenique, chief editor of The Hilltop Monitor and senior Oxbridge history of ideas major; Jonathan Fang, freshman Oxbridge music major; Jacqueline Quach, freshman Oxbridge molecular biology major; Sydni Scott, president of Black Student Alliance and sophomore psychological science major; and Benjamin Wardlow, president of Student Senate and sophomore Oxbridge institutions and policy major.

The task force will meet once a week for the remainder of April. The task force’s first meeting will be Apr. 18 at 7 p.m. in Gano Assembly. All meetings are open to members of the Jewell community, including faculty, staff, students and administration. The amendments proposed by this task force will be presented to William Jewell College’s governing bodies for approval. 

The task force was created in direct response to the controversy between the Slavery Memory Justice Project (SMJP) and the Racial Reconciliation Commission (RRC) over academic freedom. More specifically, the task force seeks to give a clear and unambiguous account of the rights of students in the hopes of preventing further disputes over the precise nature of such rights.

Throughout the fall semester of 2022, The Hilltop Monitor reported on the ongoing issue of academic freedom at William Jewell College. Concerns about whether or not the College’s administration – and its investigative council, the Racial Reconciliation Commission (RRC) – was properly living up to the College’s own commitment to academic freedom and broader academic standards with respect to academic freedom were raised by members of the Slavery, Memory, and Justice Project (SMJP). 

Because this issue is about academic freedom, it has a profound impact on the prospects for intellectual life at Jewell. After all, what is under consideration is students’ and faculty’s ability to pursue controversial subjects and use available evidence to create projects that contribute to the marketplace of ideas at Jewell. 

An article published Dec. 16 of 2022 gave an account of the claims made against the administration and the RRC, as well as some preliminary responses made by members of the administration. In order to get the administration’s perspective on this ongoing controversy, The Hilltop Monitor reached out to: Elizabeth MacLeod Walls, president of the College; Rodney Smith, vice president for access and engagement and RRC  chair; and Andrew Pratt, lead researcher for the RRC and dean emeritus of the chapel. To date, Smith has not responded to email communications, though The Hilltop Monitor attended one of his monthly meetings on Feb. 27, 2022,  with the RRC, where he updated commission members and others present on the commission’s  progress. An article on this meeting is forthcoming. 

After two email communications, Pratt declined to continue to comment, as he believed further communication with The Hilltop Monitor would undermine the investigation completed by faculty council and its report on the matter. MacLeod Walls responded to questions; this article will present both Pratt’s and MacLeod Walls’ responses to The Hilltop Monitor. Should Smith respond, The Hilltop Monitor will publish his responses in a separate article.

The Hilltop Monitor will present MacLeod Wall’s and Pratt’s responses via transcripts. Sections which are cut-out are either 1) greetings, 2) offers to schedule meetings, 3) errors in drafting emails or 4) in one case, on a matter pertaining to The Hilltop Monitor and the marketing department which requires more investigation, though an article is forthcoming. The Hilltop Monitor will also comment on certain portions of the responses given by MacLeod Walls and Pratt.

The Hilltop Monitor’s questions to MacLeod Walls and Pratt were informed by claims made against them by the SMJP. In order to understand the exchanges between The Hilltop Monitor and MacLeod Walls and Pratt, an overview of the controversy is merited.

Overview
On Dec. 5, 2022, Gary Armstrong, interim vice president of academic affairs, and Leesa McBroom, chair of faculty council and professor and chair of nursing, met with Student Senate and The Hilltop Monitor in order to present an account of faculty council’s executive summary of the report on claims made by students and faculty of the Slavery, Memory, and Justice Project. The SMJP is a group of students, alumni, and faculty which has conducted extensive research since Aug. 2020 on the history of slavery’s influence on the College. The SMJP plans to publish its final report on slavery’s influence on the College in December of this year. They will also present their scholarly research in a series of presentations at the upcoming Duke Undergraduate Colloquium in April.

The SMJP’s claims were as follows. Actions taken by the representatives of the administration showed preferential treatment in terms of access to archival materials to its own investigative council: the RRC. The RRC was established in April 2021 by MacLeod Walls.

Specifically: the SMJP alleged that the RRC’s lead researcher, Andrew Pratt, dean emeritus of the chapel, obtained privileged access to certain key materials – like nineteenth century Board of Trustee minutes and early financial documents – at a time when the SMJP students were denied equal access to the William Jewell College Archives.

Furthermore, the College administration, by hindering students’ full access to crucial historical sources related to slavery and the College’s history, undermined the SMJP’s effort to establish its scholarly credibility.  To be sure, SMJP students presented their work at Duke Colloquium in April of 2022 and in a series of Hilltop Monitor articles, but denial of access to those sources curtailed students’ ability to speak from an authoritative epistemic position to the Jewell community.

An email sent by MacLeod Walls on Aug. 30, 2021 to faculty and staff – but not students – stated that “it is the sole responsibility of the [Racial Reconciliation] Commission to determine what is true [about the College’s founding]…” This email made no mention of the SMJP or of their ongoing research into the history of the College.

Further, comments made by Macleod Walls and Smith at a May 2022 forum, where faculty, students, staff, administration, and RRC members were present, misrepresented Hayley Michael’s reasons for resigning from the RRC. Michael, now a Jewell alumna, is a member of the SMJP and former member of the RRC. In Feb. of 2022, Michael resigned from the RRC because, in her view,  student voices were not taken seriously in RRC meetings, nor in the compilation of the RRC’s report, published in Jan. of 2022. For example, Michael criticized the RRC’s report for including “various historical inaccuracies about the founders’ ties to slavery,” including exaggerating the anti-slavery actions of William Jewell, founder of the College.

Michael presented her reasons for resigning to Smith and they had a productive conversation. However, things changed in this previously mentioned May 2022 forum. Smith and MacLeod Walls – who were aware that Michael had resigned from the RRC in February – misrepresented the timeline of her resignation. Specifically, the president informed faculty, staff, students, RRC members and members of the Cabinet present that Michael had resigned just 10 days before the publication of an article in the Pitch.  In other words, MacLeod Walls, supported by Smith, had implied that Michael had been manipulated into resigning from the RRC in a media campaign to make the administration and the RRC look bad. These comments undermine Michael’s – and more broadly, the SMJP’s – scholarly credentials and ignored Michael’s principled criticism of the RRC in terms of its disregard for student voices and its flawed, unduly positive narrative of the College’s founders.  

A more comprehensive account of claims made by the SMJP can be found in The Hilltop Monitor’s article from Dec. 16, 2022; the article also includes Armstrong’s and McBroom’s responses to these claims.
 

The Hilltop Monitor will present the questions asked of Macleod Walls and Pratt and their responses via transcripts of emails. Should Smith respond, The Hilltop Monitor will publish his responses as soon as possible in a separate article. 

Questions to and Responses of MacLeod Walls

A full copy of The Hilltop Monitor’s questions, and MacLeod Walls’ responses, can be found here.

The bulk of the email communications between MacLeod Walls and The Hilltop Monitor pertained to comments she made about Michael at the May 2022 forum. Unfortunately, recordings or transcripts of this May 2022 forum are not known to exist. Instead, Michael was informed about these comments by faculty and staff present, who were shocked by the administration’s willingness to undermine Michael’s credentials as a student expert.

When The Hilltop Monitor asked MacLeod Walls about her comments at this meeting regarding Michael’s perceived reasons for leaving the RRC, her responses did not touch upon the substance of her comments. Instead, she claimed the meeting – which was attended by students, faculty, staff, and RRC members – was confidential. Indeed, she stated that “a breach in professional conduct” had occurred and asked Armstrong and McBroom to investigate Michael’s being informed about the meeting.

Questions to and Responses of Pratt  

A full copy of The Hilltop Monitor’s questions, and Pratt’s responses, can be found here. 

A careful reader might wonder why The Hilltop Monitor chose to ask such specific follow up questions having to do with how certain Early Financial Documents were uploaded, and how they were accessed. The questions are meant to illustrate to readers the workings of the archives. Historically, when materials were requested by the RRC, scans were taken of the relevant documents and uploaded to a private folder, hosted on the Archive’s OneDrive. Access to these folders required that individuals have a unique link, which acted as an access key.

Most readers would not know that this is how research requests were completed. Generally speaking, the ways in which the Archives stores and shares information is a mystery to faculty, students, and staff – unless they work at the Archives, or have previously requested access to information. Pratt’s assertion that crucial materials were uploaded onto a public website for all researchers, then, is a misleading assertion; one which depends on the individual asking these questions not to know how the Archives works. In fact, materials requested by the RRC – the Early Financial Papers, for example – were never put on a public facing site. If they had been, then claims made by the SMJP about inequality of access would have been defused. 

Although RRC researchers have been given digital copies of trustee records from the Civil War era, the administration has denied student researchers equal research privileges by preventing students from taking digital photographs or making scans of any trustee documents, even those more than a century and a half old. 

There is much about the Archives that remains unclear. For example, one might ask how exactly ‘informal advisors’ are integrated into the hierarchical structure of the organization. One might also ask what principles are used to decide which advisors get their own key to the space and under what conditions they can use it. Unfortunately, no further communication with Pratt is possible to clarify these issues.  

Moving forward, The Hilltop Monitor will switch gears and focus on the student’s perspective on this issue, starting with an interview with Black Student Alliance (BSA) and the soon to be formed History Club. The Hilltop Monitor will also continue to report on the progress in terms of implementing Faculty Council’s recommendations in order to improve the College’s commitment to academic freedom.