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.

On Dec. 5, 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 to brief students on faculty council’s executive summary of the report on claims made by students and faculty of the Slavery, Memory Justice Project (SMJP) that the William Jewell College administration had undermined students’ and faculty’s academic freedom.  Armstrong also provided a copy of faculty council’s recommendations for strengthening academic freedom at William Jewell College, as stated in the executive summary of its report.

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 claimed that their ability to present their scholarship to the Jewell community was undermined by interference from the administration. The SMJP also claimed that the College showed preferential treatment in terms of access to archival materials to its own investigative council: the Racial Reconciliation Commission (RRC); the RRC had unlimited access to materials that the SMJP had limited access to. The RRC was established in April 2021 by Elizabeth MacLeod Walls, president of the College. Its purpose is to “[find] and [express] both an historical and moral truth about the racial history of William Jewell College spanning the years of our founding until today.”

After providing a copy of the recommendations, Armstrong addressed questions from members of Student Senate and The Hilltop Monitor pertaining to the recommendations. Armstrong also discussed some of the historical background that led to the resolution to investigate claims of academic freedom violations. 

Secondly, Amstrong also stated that, apart from faculty council’s recommendations, students would not receive any other aspects of faculty council’s executive summary on the report of academic freedom. Armstrong’s explanation for this decision centered on confidentiality, personnel privacy, and the importance of second chances for parties interviewed in the investigative process.

Thirdly, Armstrong responded to claims made in a letter written by Christopher Wilkins, associate professor of history and faculty advisor for the SMJP, concerning the lack of findings on violations of student academic freedom within the report. Afterwards, McBroom explained why faculty council chose to make findings on particular student issues, and not others.

The meeting will be discussed through these three sections. Readers may follow along on the full transcript of the meeting, which can be found here. The transcript, like the article, is divided into sections for ease of access.

The members of the Student Senate meeting generally have a good understanding of the history of the controversy. As a result, the questions asked by students present and Armstrong’s and McBroom’s responses assume a certain degree of knowledge about the matter at hand. Since it is not the case that these facts have been presented in a comprehensive manner to the student body, the article will first give a history of the events leading up to the resolution prompting faculty council’s investigation and the actors involved. Clarification of necessary historical background will take place in the first section of this article; the next three sections will deal with the proceeding of the meeting as previously articulated. In total, this article will have four sections.

I. The events leading up to faculty council’s resolution

On Apr. 4, 2022, Wilkins presented a lecture to Jewell faculty in which he expressed reservations about the RRC’s report and discussed violations of the SMJP’s academic freedom. This report – which was released in January of 2022 – provided the RRC’s “initial research regarding the slaveholding of the College’s founders and the influence of those founders on the early decades of the College.” The report was compiled by the RRC’s lead researcher, Andrew Pratt, dean emeritus of the chapel, using resources from the William Jewell College Archives and Partee Center, the Missouri State Archives, and research conducted by other members of the RRC and research done by Hayley Michael for the SMJP. Michael – now a Jewell history and political science alumna –  is a member of the SMJP and a former member of the RRC between Apr. and Feb. of 2022. Michael resigned from the RRC because of her reservations regarding the findings of the RRC’s report.

In his lecture, Wilkins praised the work of SMJP students, who had gathered more than 5,000 historical sources illuminating slavery’s influence on Jewell’s history. Wilkins also criticized the approach that the RRC had taken in studying connections between slavery and Jewell’s history, including its failure to to focus on the lived experience of enslaved people and the administration’s lack of engagement with SMJP students’ work.

On Apr. 22, 2022, in another lecture, Wilkins elaborated on the claims he made to faculty on Apr. 4. Wilkins claimed the following:

First, the administration inaccurately implied that the research done by Jewell students, alumni, and Wilkins on the College’s pro-slavery past was done in collaboration with the RRC and administration. In the College’s initial public relations statement regarding the RRC, Wilkins was listed as a special advisor to the group and his name was used without permission in the College’s announcement video for the RRC. In fact, Wilkins had declined to be a part of the RRC. 

Second, Wilkins elaborated on his earlier point on Apr. 4 concerning the lack of adequate engagement with student voices and student research in the RRC’s report. The RRC’s report makes no mention of research completed by SMJP students as members of the SMJP. The RRC report cites research compiled by Michael, but does not indicate that this research was done as part of the SMJP project, long before the RRC’s report was compiled. Furthermore, the RRC’s report did not cite research completed by the student archivist during the summer of 2021 on census data hosted on the Missouri State Archives website.

Though Wilkins did not directly mention this in his lecture at the Colloquium, he invited the audience to ask SMJP student researchers about their experiences serving on the RRC. Specifically, he indicated that the way in which the RRC repeatedly undermined student voices was enumerated in Michael’s letter of resignation from the RRC. The content of this letter would later serve as some of the basis for Wilkins’ claims that culminated in the resolution petitioning faculty council to investigate concerns about academic freedom violations. Because this was discussed in the Student Senate meeting, a fuller account of this letter will be given in the relevant section of this article. 

Third, Wilkins drew attention to an e-mail sent by Elizabeth MacLeod Walls, president of the College, on Aug. 30, 2021; Wilkins discussed this e-mail on Apr. 22 of 2022 during the Duke Undergraduate Colloquium. This e-mail was sent to all faculty and staff – but not students – after the Kansas City Star published an article focusing on the SMJP students’ research. The e-mail stated that “until we are clear on what is true regarding Jewell’s founding, we cannot make decisions on how we should live, or move forward,  as a twenty-first century institution of higher learning. Perhaps more importantly, it is the sole responsibility of the [Racial Reconciliation] Commission to determine what is true [about the college’s founding]…”

The e-mail made no mention of the SMJP or of their contributions to researching the history of the College and its ties to slavery. Wilkins claimed that MacLeod Walls’ e-mail, in asserting that the RRC had the sole responsibility to determine what is true about the founding of the College, amounted to the claim that “only the college administration has the authority to say what is true about its history” – not the students, nor any alumni or faculty associated with the SMJP. 

Fourthly, Wilkins claimed that repeated efforts, dating back to Sept. of 2020, to make contact with the administration and the lead researcher of the RRC in order “to try to get them to empower the students and listen to the students and me when we explain what national best practices would require to study Jewell’s pro-slavery past well” amounted to nothing.

For example, SMJP students suggested dedicating a room in Jewell Hall to the history of the College and its ties to slavery – this idea was rejected by the College on the basis that it did not constitute an “organic” move towards change. Further, Wilkins’ petition to have a faculty forum for the purposes of educating faculty on the history of slavery at the College was denied on the grounds that this move would be “discourteous to the administration.” It was Pharamond Guice, then chair of the staff council, who invited Wilkins to speak to staff on these issues.

Finally, Wilkins also claimed that students were barred from access to key resources found in the William Jewell College Archives at a time when Pratt had 24/7 access to the archives, given that he had a key to the archives. In other words, the College showed preferential treatment to its own investigative commission in terms of access to key archival resources. 

In May of 2022, on the basis of claims made by Wilkins and SMJP students, a resolution was unanimously approved by the Jewell faculty tasking faculty council to ‘investigate and report on claims that academic freedom has been threatened or undermined at Jewell.’ That investigation began in June and concluded last month. Its findings, to the extent that students have been able to learn about them, were the subject of the Student Senate meeting, and will be brought up in the relevant section.

II. The executive summary of  faculty council’s report on the question of academic freedom: A brief history and recommendations 

With these historical preliminaries aside, the article will discuss the Student Senate meeting. Readers following along on the transcript should note that this section corresponds to section 1 of the transcript.

Armstrong stated that “faculty voted on a resolution which [he] had offered… to ask faculty council to investigate the claims about whether academic freedom had been threatened or undermined.”

Once the resolution had been adopted, faculty council began a “long investigative process” which McBroom took part in. McBroom, along with other faculty, was “elected by the faculty and entrusted by the faculty” to undertake this investigative process.

After collecting evidence by interviewing relevant individuals, asking questions of the College archives and reviewing the Faculty Handbook and the Student Handbook, faculty council compiled their findings in a report. The full report was issued to administrative Cabinet members, faculty council, the Board of Trustees, the associate dean of the core curriculum and academic department chairs. An executive summary of this report was issued to all faculty. However, no faculty members other than department chairs will be allowed to see the full report. 

According to Armstrong, “faculty council had three principal findings. First, while academic freedom had not been threatened… it had been undermined. Secondly, although there have been claims that professor Wilkins and [SMJP] students had been denied fair access to the college archives, [faculty council] found those claims were not persuasive. They didn’t rise to the level of being an academic freedom violation.” Thirdly, “[faculty council] also found that although there had been claims that students had been denied their right to present their findings or research – to have a voice – they found that those were not persuasive either.” 

Armstrong presented students with faculty council’s 25 recommendations. The document containing these recommendations can be accessed here. The Hilltop Monitor has also transcribed the recommendations. They are as follows:

Policy Changes 

1. Academic Freedom Policy
   • Examine handbook language to ensure consistency and adequate protection of academic freedom. 
   • Specifically address academic freedom issues around intramural speech and protect the right to criticize college policy and administrative decisions. 
   • Require annual training for the Board of Trustees (BOT), Administration and Faculty on Academic Freedom.
   • Review the student academic freedom policy.
   • Appoint an academic freedom policy task force to review these recommendations. 
2. Archive Policy 
   • The policy on access and storage of old trustee minutes should be written.
   • Commit to preserving the archives, following best practices, improving the environment/storage, and providing the resources to do so. 
   • Policy on archive access should be codified. 
   • Clarify role of retirees, key return, building access, and oversight of and input on policy. 
3. Write a policy for the Faculty Handbook or Policy Library about media inquiries and faculty.

Racial Reconciliation Commission 

1. Continue the scholarly work of uncovering the history of the College’s earliest decades, but with a renewed energy of cooperation among all competing narratives. 
2. Acknowledge that the previous histories left out the truth. 
3. Tell the history unimpeded by spinning a more “acceptable” story.
4. Inform the College community of the RRC’s mandate, goals, and alignment with strategic plan. 
5. Share recommendations, engage the community, and share next steps. 
6. Adopt a transparent process by providing regular communication on outcomes and shortening the timeline on action items. 
7. Remove the announcement video and webpage information that implies Dr. Wilkins is a member of RRC.

Shared Governance 

1. Issue a statement of support from Administration and BOT defending faculty rights to full academic freedom and commitment to shared governance. 
2. Specify that the VPAA leads in the defense of academic freedom for the faculty. 
3. Appoint two faculty to the full BOT for a two-year term and a maximum of two consecutive terms for consistent faculty representation concurrent with the Faculty Council subcommittee appointments. 
4. Improve consistent membership of Faculty Council members on subcommittees. 
5. Appoint a faculty cabinet from the chairs of the big four committee (or their designee) to provide an avenue to improve communication, trust, and shared governance. 
6. The VPAA should vet any changes to the Faculty Handbook after first consulting with Faculty Council.
7. Faculty Council should conduct a regular evaluation of the President and VPAA, reporting the results to the faculty. 

Culture and Communication

1. Foster a culture of trust and openness. 
2. Acknowledge the culture of fear and take steps to acknowledge and adopt meaningful change to eliminate or mitigate fear. 
3. Seek to listen to diverse viewpoints and find compromise instead of attempting to control. 
4. Set collaboration as a priority at all levels, and include all relevant audiences. 
5. When intentions or goals are not clear, gather all pertinent members face-to-face to discuss goals, priorities, and intentions to avoid miscommunication. 
6. Allow multiple voices into formal communication efforts to incorporate diverse perspectives and check tone and alignment. 
7. Check communication efforts to make sure they are forward-looking and not simply reactionary. 
8. Develop a culture taskforce (made up of administration, faculty, and staff) to assess current cultural norms and find effective ways forward to mitigate some of the cultural characteristics and miscommunication that led to this situation.
   

Armstrong stated that the administration is committed to enacting faculty council’s recommendations. This commitment was expressed in a joint e-mail from MacLeod Walls and Armstrong to the faculty on Nov. 19, the day after faculty council’s executive summary of the report was released to all faculty. 

Armstrong noted that the timeline in terms of the adoption of these recommendations is difficult to pin down. Some of the recommendations, such as the recommendation to review the Faculty Handbook, require the approval of the Board of Trustees. Further, proposing major changes to the Student Handbook with respect to academic freedom requires that the Board be informed such that they can make comments and questions.

III: On the confidentiality of the executive summary of faculty council’s report

Armstrong then gave an account of why the executive summary of faculty council’s report is confidential. Interested readers will want to refer to section two of the transcript. 

Armstrong stated that it is the College’s policy to “maintain confidentiality about investigative processes which can involve alleged misconduct.” To illustrate this, Armstrong gave three examples. 

1. “Professor McBroom and I know faculty that have been fired because they have sex with students. We don’t know that officially because unless you’re directly involved with the case, we never say that publicly. That’s in part to guard the rightful privacy of the student who is involved, but that is also – in cases where everyone is confident that there is not serial abuse – you give the faculty a chance to get another job. So it’s in part about privacy, second chances.”

2. “I served on the Greek judicial council. Now, the Greek judicial council does not deal with individual Greeks; it deals with sanctions on Greek organizations as a whole. Some of them have gotten into enormous trouble and faced serious sanctions imposed by a group who are majority students with some faculty – and I bet you don’t know. Well, why don’t we tell you? It’s in part we’re saying to those organizations, get your act together. And we’re going to give you a chance to recruit good new members to help you keep your act together rather than publicly – but if you don’t get your act together, then that can come out.”

3. “I imagine this year we’re going to have 35 academic honor code violations. I will always think the College should – and we always do – we report to faculty and I hope the Hilltop Monitor will always run an article on the numbers: how many cases, how many were convicted, how many were acquitted, describe the sanctions. But we can’t tell you the individuals and that’s in part because, we’ve always said that part of our educational process –  even in that process – is educational and to give the person another chance. So that’s elements of rightful confidentiality in my view.”

Students were confused about the examples presented. While clearly there was some similarity in terms of confidentiality for the sake of maintaining personnel or student privacy in both the academic freedom investigation and in the three examples, the nature of these examples seemed different than the investigation undertaken by faculty council. As The Hilltop Monitor’s reporter noted, the examples dealt with criminal investigations or investigations into misconduct, whereas the issue at hand was a “determination on student rights to academic freedom.” The Hilltop Monitor reporter argued that it was important for students to see the “deliberation that faculty council underwent in order to have an understanding of how… admin and… faculty understand students’ rights.”

In response, Armstrong emphasized that confidentiality was maintained because of personnel privacy. As Armstrong stated that behind some of the evidence “are actual college personnel and officers. And… faculty council made the decision… that the really important thing here is to figure out what happened and what to do about it… not to adjudicate personal accountability and responsibility.” Therefore, “[the College] cannot give an account of the structure of the deliberation beyond what’s in the executive summary… [In the report, faculty council] give a definition of what they mean by threaten and undermine; they gave a list of the people that they interviewed; and some evidence that they looked at… Beyond that, that is cloaked behind confidentiality.”

The Hilltop Monitor’s reporter asked whether the principles that faculty council used in their deliberation about academic freedom could be released. The Hilltop Monitor’s reporter was specifically interested in getting the definition of undermine or threaten as used in the report.

Armstrong responded that “[the student body] will not be given the exact principles [used by faculty council].”

Following up on this line of questioning, Ethan Naber, Student Senate’s commissioner for student involvement, asked why “no steps [like redacting names of personnel where appropriate] can be taken to make information available to students.” 

Armstrong responded that he had already given three examples as to why this would not suffice to safeguard confidentiality. However, he stated that he was “very happy to ask the president” for permission to summarize the arguments he had presented thus far. 

IV. Dr. Wilkins’ allegations in his letter to faculty and administration

Benjamin Wardlow, president of Student Senate, asked Armstrong and McBroom to respond to allegations discussed in a letter Wilkins sent to faculty and administration on Dec. 4, following the release of the executive summary. The Hilltop Monitor obtained a copy of Wilkins’ letter. Interested readers will want to refer to section three and four of the transcript.

The central claim made by Wilkins was that faculty council’s findings – as reported in the executive summary – presented “a flawed, incomplete narrative that effaces students’ central role” in the ongoing controversy concerning academic freedom. Specifically, faculty council failed to make findings on two of three claims that Wilkins made with respect to student academic freedom, and Wilkins argued that its finding on his third claim was flawed.

What were Wilkins’ three claims?

1. The administration threatened or undermined student academic freedom by “hindering students’ access to historical sources and giving College officials preferential access to those sources.”

2. The administration threatened or undermined student academic freedom “by attempting to exert control over the dissemination of students’ research into the College’s relation to slavery.”

3. The administration threatened or undermined student academic freedom by “hindering their ability to have their scholarship judged fairly by the College community.”

With respect to the first claim, Armstrong stated that faculty council’s report “concluded that professor Wilkins did have access to the archives but at a different timeline as the result of what was going on inside the archives – it was not a process of deliberate, intentional denial of archive access.”

Furthermore, Armstrong drew a distinction between violations of academic freedom and violations of the spirit of free inquiry. Armstrong argued that barring someone “access to archival materials is not itself an academic freedom issue.” To explain why, Armstrong gave three examples:

1. “If I want the minutes of crucial Chinese leadership meetings over what to do at Shanghai, and they refuse to give it to me, my academic freedom has not been violated.”

2. “If I want what I think are super secret memos in the Vatican about the role of the Pope in World War II, and I want those memos and the Vatican says no, my academic freedom has not been violated.”

3. “If I believe there are really important memos in the George Bush library about torture and I know where they are and they won’t give them, my academic freedom has not been violated.”

Students were confused about the applicability of these examples to the current matter. The Hilltop Monitor reporter noted that the issue at hand was one wherein a faculty member had requested access to archival resources. It was unclear just how petitioning a foreign government could be similar to this case, particularly when the policy of the College archives has generally been that “so long as it’s a member of the Jewell community [petitioning for access to archival resources], [archives staff] have to give reasons for not giving access.” And although the College granted Wilkins and the SMJP students access to archival resources, the SMJP claimed that the RRC’s lead researcher was given “preferential treatment” to archives resources. Specifically, in June 2021, the SMJP had first requested information about Board of Trustee minutes, but never received information from the archives staff regarding them, and only learned of their existence after the publication of the RRC’s slavery report in Jan. of 2022.

In response, Armstrong emphasized that the point of his examples “is that refusing to grant access to information is not itself a violation of academic freedom.” Further, with respect to the claim about preferential treatment of the RRC’s lead researcher, Armstrong stated that “he had different access at a different time, but Professor Wilkins was given the same access.” Armstrong also added that “the second thing that’s important… is that the early Board of Trustees minutes were not in the archives. They were in the executive office.”

A brief discussion on the resources in contention is merited. Apart from a general claim made by SMJP students that they were barred access to the archives for a variety of reasons such as the disorganization of the archives itself and the presence of black mold, there is also a specific claim made with respect to certain key archives resources. These are the mid 19th century minutes of the Board of Trustees and certain early development financial papers. The minutes of the Board of Trustees are not stored in the archives; these are stored in the president’s office. The early development papers are stored in the archives. 

The claims made by Wilkins with respect to the early development papers and the Board of Trustee minutes are as follows:

1. During the summer of 2021, Wilkins petitioned the College archives for access to their resources in order to conduct research concerning the history of the College and its ties to slavery. This petition made it known to archives staff that Wilkins was looking for documents which might aid his research. Given the disorganization of the archives at the time, effective research required that archives staff stay on the lookout for resources that might help the patron, as the patron themself could not reference a comprehensive inventory, nor wander archives circulation, as the archives is closed circulation. That archives staff did not inform Wilkins or the SMJP students about the RRC’s lead researcher finding the Board of Trustee minutes in the President’s Office, then, constitutes preferential treatment of the RRC in terms of access to resources, where access to these resources is crucial for academic freedom insofar as this involves pursuing controversial issues freely. Wilkins and the SMJP students found out about the existence of the Board of Trustee minutes only when the RRC’s report was published. Previously, the Board of Trustee minutes in question had been lost and were found in the President’s Office.

2. In April 2022, when Wilkins requested to see the mid 19th century Board of Trustee minutes kept for safekeeping in the Office of the President, adding that he wished to include SMJP students in these research appointments, he received a response from the administration that, in order to see these minutes, he and his students would have to petition the Board of Trustees directly. Later, this was revised to say that President MacLeod Walls, who is “ultimately responsible” for the minutes, could approve access to the minutes—which she did. In his open letter to faculty, Wilkins pointed out that he had first asked to see the trustee minutes in June 2021, and that between that time and January 2022, when the existence of those sources became public knowledge, only the RRC’s lead researcher had been able to conduct research in the sources.

3. Furthermore, when Wilkins and the SMJP students were granted access to these resources, they were informed that no scans or photographs could be taken of these minutes, nor of the early development financial papers stored in the archives, as both of these contain proprietary and confidential information. Wilkins and his students were invited to take handwritten or typed notes on the documents. However, this again showed that the College had given preferential treatment to the RRC’s lead researcher – Pratt had received scans of almost all the early development papers stored in the archives. These scans were made by the student archivist during the summer of 2021.

4. By unduly obstructing the SMJP’s access to resources, the College’s actions undermined the epistemic authority of the SMJP. While the lead researcher of the RRC had reproductions which he could easily reproduce, the SMJP researchers had to rely on handwritten or typed notes which are subject to mistakes and to further questioning by members of the public. These obstacles in terms of access made it so that the SMJP was in a worse position in terms of doing sustained academic research into the history of the College – these concerns seemed to Wilkins to fall right under the purview of academic freedom violations.

In response, Armstrong reasserted that SMJP students were granted access to resources, just on a different timeline. He also restated his strong belief that a denial of access is not an academic freedom violation.

Armstrong then addressed Wilkins’ second claim by drawing a distinction between controlling and influencing. Armstrong argues that Wilkins’ claims that the administration went astray insofar as they attempted to influence the students, and that this struck him as “different than… control.” “If the president says, ‘We are worried about the timing of… [the] dissemination of findings and building coalitions and support for the unity of change.’ She has just said, ‘We are worried.’ She did not say, ‘You may not do that.’ So she’s trying to influence, but that’s not the same thing as control.”

These comments were in reference to claims that, upon hearing that The Hilltop Monitor planned to release several articles about the SMJP and their research, the administration contacted The Hilltop Monitor to ask that the publication of these articles be delayed. Despite the administration’s attempt to influence the publication time, The Hilltop Monitor published their articles in April and May (the relevant articles can be accessed here, starting with an article published in Apr. 16, 2021). 

Finally, Armstrong addressed Wilkins’ third claim. Armstrong does not believe that the actions of the administration undermined students’ freedom to have their scholarship judged fairly by the College community. For the same reasons he discussed earlier in the meeting: namely, students were able to present their research at various forums and on The Hilltop Monitor. 

However, Wilkins’ claims say a bit more. Wilkins argues that communication on the part of the administration – both to specific students and to the Jewell community – undermined Jewell’s standing as a marketplace of ideas, where competing truths can be discussed and tested. This is because the communication on the part of administration, which has a great degree of authority and influence when it comes to addressing both the Jewell community and the broader Kansas City community, placed the RRC at the center of the investigative enterprise while ignoring or minimizing the SMJP’s ongoing contributions to research into the history of the College. 

There are at least three instances that may support such a claim:

1. The first is one that has already been mentioned; namely, MacLeod Walls’ email in August of 2021 that stated that the RRC had the ‘sole responsibility’ to determine what is true in terms of the history of the College.

2. The second has to do with statements made by the administration with respect to Michael’s letter of resignation from the RRC. As a reminder, Michael was a history and political science major who was a founding member of the SMJP in August 2020; she is now a Jewell alumna. Michael agreed to be a member of the RRC in Apr. of 2021. In Feb. of 2022, she resigned from the RRC for a variety of reasons. One of these is that she did not feel that her concerns as a student researcher were adequately heard during the RRC’s meetings. 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. When Michael disputed this portrayal of Jewell’s actions using SMJP member Christian Santiago’s research on Jewell, she was told: “No, you’re wrong.”

Michael presented the reasons for her resignation to Rodney Smith, vice president for access and engagement and commission chair. In a letter to the SMJP sent in July 2022, Michael states that in a May 2022 faculty forum, MacLeod Walls implied that “that Dr. Wilkins manipulated me into resigning because he was angry the administration refused his demands. She portrayed me as a weak-willed individual in front of 40+ faculty and the entire college cabinet, completely ignoring that I had resigned for principled moral and intellectual reasons.”

3. Michael claimed that comments by Smith also misrepresented her to the Jewell community.

Armstrong addressed each of these claims. In terms of the first, Armstrong stated that “what [MacLeod Walls] says in that e-mail is that the RRC will have the sole authority to decide what is true and what we are going to do about it.The faculty all heard the first part of the e-mail.” But what MacLeod Walls really meant was “the ‘and’ in the second part.” Further, Armstrong thinks that MacLeod Walls likely regrets that e-mail, given that there is a general understanding on the part of the faculty that “the institutional office of the College does not have a right to decide what is true. [However,] it does have the right to figure out what [the community is] going to do about it.”

Particularly with respect to the third claim, Armstrong stated that “Dr. Smith… would say that… those statements were inartful… [that he] did not mean to indicate the College or the RRC is going to control who receives what of the SMJP’s students’ research.” Armstrong also added that Smith had already clarified his statements in several meetings. 

The Hilltop Monitor reporter asked in what meetings, and to whom, Smith had clarified that his statements were ‘inartful.’ The Hilltop Monitor reporter argued that the issue is that no students had been present in these meetings, which did not ameliorate the “institutional break-down of trust between the admin and the students.”

Armstrong emphasized that The Hilltop Monitor should interview Smith and MacLeod Walls on their statements made with respect to Michael and with respect to the RRC being solely responsible for inquiry into the truth of the history of the College. Armstrong argued that: “It’s time for some interviews, instead of writing more editorials.” Armstrong’s comments are in reference to an editorial arguing that the College should uphold its commitments to student academic freedom, as articulated in the Student Handbook, and disseminate an appropriately redacted version of the executive summary of faculty council’s report.

Wardlow then turned to McBroom. Specifically, Wardlow wanted to understand why faculty council reached a finding on Wilkins’ third claim, and not his first and second claim. In terms of the third claim: faculty council had found that students’ academic freedom was not threatened or undermined insofar as students were able to present at Colloquium and publish articles on the Hilltop Monitor.

McBroom stated that faculty council’s investigative scope was limited to concerns about faculty academic freedom, given its charter. Faculty council did make a finding on Wilkins’ third claim because it pertained to concerns of faculty academic freedom. Faculty council’s claims were also set in relation to Wilkins claims. This also accounts for why faculty council made findings with respect to certain issues, and not others.

At the conclusion of the meeting, Matthew Parker, Student Senate’s commissioner for students’ charter of rights and responsibilities, asked whether there “is…some council or commission whose job it is to address matters of student academic freedom, specifically as regards students rather than as regards faculty.”

McBroom recommended that students “read the student handbook first” to see what “processes or procedures” may be in place. McBroom also recommended that students work with Ernie Stufflebean, dean of students, to “move [things] forward.”  

Armstrong added that he thought it was “totally reasonable for Student Senate to send a letter to the administration” asking for assurances that credible allegations concerning student academic freedom violation would be addressed.  After the meeting with Armstrong and McBroom ended, the cabinet members of Student Senate – along with Stufflebean – discussed gathering evidence from students and alumni affiliated with the SMJP in order to continue the discussion on academic freedom. The Hilltop Monitor will continue to report on the story as it develops, and relevant members of administration will be contacted to give them an opportunity to respond to claims that surfaced in this meeting.