We all like to complain about our classes. There are too many readings, the professor is unpleasant or has high expectations, the material is boring or too complicated. I think we all know deep down that most of the time we do this it’s not because the class is actually that dismal or draconian, but because we just need to complain as a way to cope with things being what they are.

Not me.

I have rage in my heart against the CTI system that Jewell has put in place, and I have an absolutely clear and unbiased view of the way things work. Thus, everything I say about CTIs here today is not just a “rant,” no mere expression of personal frustration, but the pure, unadulterated truth, and I expect things to change around here.

Disclaimer: I’m not talking about 100-level CTIs. Gen-ed courses are a pretty normal college requirement, and I think 100-level CTIs do a great job of giving people the background they need to think critically in their other classes. My beef is with the requirement of three different 200-level courses in three different disciplines. I haven’t experienced a CTI Capstone yet, so I can’t directly speak to them, but if you have, feel free to leave a comment about your experience and whether my frustrations apply there as well.

First of all, why is William Jewell College on a different system than the rest of the known universe in terms of CTIs? I have so many friends, and I’m sure you know these people too, who have either tried to transfer out of Jewell or into Jewell and realized that they are an entire semester or even year behind because CTI credits don’t count towards your degree anywhere but here. People who want to receive an education partially from Jewell and partially elsewhere are directly harmed by our current CTI system and have difficulty graduating on time, which I believe is something we should be trying harder to avoid.

Second, 200-level CTI requirements can be overly burdensome and sometimes, frankly, ridiculous for those of us in more intense or unusual degree programs. For example, I’m a double major, and one of those is music – I’m always at the 18-credit limit and really should be doing more. To go over that limit is to pay more, which I can’t really afford, and CTI 200-level courses are 4 credits each, keeping me from completing other courses related to my major on my preferred schedule since that space in my course schedule is already taken up. Not to mention the time, textbook price, and mental commitment each CTI saps from me. Perhaps some people have extra time and credit space in their schedules and want to take a class outside their major. Awesome. Do it. Personally, I don’t want to, and I especially don’t want to pay to, and I especially don’t want to be paying to do so at the cost of courses that I actually want and need to take. It’s an unnecessary burden on a very special and cool person (me).

Some people have told me that CTIs might be inconvenient, but they’re good for me and teach me critical thinking, so I should suck it up and stop being a little b**** about it. I will not. First of all, I think we’ve all experienced CTIs that certainly didn’t take any critical thought or inquiry, CTIs from which we learned only that the world is cruel and sometimes you have to get up at 8 AM for a class that teaches you a whole lot of nothing, where you don’t know anyone,you are hungry and sleepy for two hours and that’s just how it works, buddy. (Just imagine how complain-y I’ll be as an old person.) But also, aren’t all the courses at Jewell supposed to be teaching us critical thinking? Isn’t that what the multiple 100-level CTIs we took were all about? Why do I have to take a religion course (meh) or a political science course (disgusting and revolting) on top of my other courses in which I learn to think critically or else I can’t graduate? A liberal arts college should not try to mold people into its own image, but instead should remember that to a large extent, it is still a service that we, the students, select and pay for. If we lived in a utopia and had a good system to track CTI credits as well as unlimited time and resources to spend on education, the CTI system would be more likely to produce well-rounded citizens, but because of the issues outlined above, that’s simply not what’s happening. Therefore, the control of our higher education, to the largest extent possible, should be in our own hands, the hands of the consumer, not in the hands of the people who profit from my choices – or lack thereof. This is how services work; if you went to a Subway to build your own sandwich and they also made you pay for an extra drink and side that you didn’t want, it doesn’t matter how delicious and nutritious that extra side and drink are – you would feel cheated out of your money and suspicious that Subway is becoming authoritarian.

In summary, given that Jewell’s 200-level CTIs do not transfer credit either to or from other schools and that for many of us, CTIs limit opportunities within our actual fields of study by taking up time, energy, and credit space, my opinion is that they should not be a graduation requirement. I’m all for allowing people to take CTIs as electives, but for some of us, extra work just isn’t an option if we are to stay on track and really hinders our ability to get our majors completed. Since colleges and universities under capitalism are a service that the students consume, we should be in charge of our own educations and what goes into them as much as possible; CTIs are an extra expense on our receipt that we never added to the cart. I’m thankful that some CTI restrictions are lessening, such as the new addition that the three 200-level CTIs we take do not all have to be outside of our majors, but the current system is not useful for us and feels, to me, obsolete and authoritarian. Sometimes, you just need to vent to a good friend or perhaps the entirety of the Hilltop Monitor’s reader community, and then you realize that it wasn’t such a big deal after all. Not me. I am enraged and furious, and will probably die early due to a heart condition associated with high levels of chronic anger and stress. 200-level CTIs are dangerous, Cardinals. Be careful out there.

The press release noted that Van Horn’s vision for Jewell’s future emphasized “personalized education rooted in the liberal arts and humanities, aimed at preparing students for successful careers and civic engagement in a constantly changing world.” His experience includes tenures as the president of Brevard College in North Carolina and Young Harris College in Georgia, both of which had or continue to have affiliations with the Methodist church.

It is not surprising that the Trustees have chosen Van Horn as interim president given the new direction of the College under the Reimagine Jewell initiative. Bill Gautreaux, chair of the Board of Trustees, noted that Van Horn’s “[unique] data driven results-oriented focus” would help the College “build on Jewell’s long history of academic excellence and student success.” It is unclear what emphasizing a “results-oriented focus” means at this time for programs and faculty, given cuts to both last year.

A New Direction

In an interview with Higher Education Digest, Van Horn outlined a myriad of policy outcomes for smaller private colleges that he believed would help them flourish. Two of his policy proposals are particularly relevant in viewing the way Van Horn will lead the College.

First, Van Horn emphasized that “[i]nstitutions must continue to identify low-producing majors and eliminate them from their offerings.” As Jewell thins its program offerings (having eliminated majors in International Relations, Mathematics, Oxbridge, Philosophy, Spanish, and Theatre this past year, among others), Jewell administration appears to have already emphasized identifying and removing “lower-producing majors” in an effort to reduce program spending.

Second, Van Horn emphasized that colleges, especially small private colleges, must “refocus the Boards, alumni, faculty, and staff on the mission of the institutions… focus on the type of student that [they] historically served and determine if this was still the mission for the institutions.” This includes, where necessary, “reducing the number of hours in the core curriculum” and changing the institution’s focus from core curriculum to double majors or certificates that enable student success, particularly in the workforce. As Jewell becomes more diverse and moves away from its Baptist roots, College administrators must decide whether to double down on Jewell’s historical mission or upend it.

No matter one’s feelings about Critical Thought and Inquiry (CTI) classes, it is clear that the Reimagine Jewell initiative, under the leadership of Van Horn, represents a significant shift for William Jewell College and its administration. Will Van Horn lead a shift out of exigency and toward a flourishing Jewell? Or will the College lose sight of the liberal arts emphasis that has caused its success for so long?

As usual, only time will tell.
The Hilltop Monitor is committed to publishing a range of Letters to the Editor. If you have thoughts on this piece, please send us your letters via the Contact Us page.

The Incident
Mary Leniton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Student’s Perspective
Mary Leniton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Interview with the Student Senate President
Ethan Naber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion
Ethan Naber and Mary Leniton

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

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

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

In recent years, William Jewell College has pushed for increased diversity and inclusivity on campus and in the community through Radical Inclusivity efforts. The Hilltop Monitor will be conducting an investigation into the efficacy, past and future of Radical Inclusivity efforts at Jewell through curricular offerings. 

The investigation will be published in multiple parts, each of them emphasizing a different perspective on institutional changes, both recent and historical. This article is the first to be published in the series and it will focus on the Critical Thought and Inquiry (CTI) program, Jewell’s core curriculum and CTI 150 in particular. This article will focus on the CTI program from 2016 to the present, as the curriculum underwent changes and development in relation to diversity and inclusion during that time. 

Dr. Gary Armstrong, professor of political science and associate dean of the core curriculum, provided some insight into the CTI program and its relationship to Radical Inclusivity in order to give context for diversity and inclusion within Jewell’s curriculum.

The core curriculum is at the heart of Jewell’s identity as a liberal arts college. According to Armstrong, the College’s mission is lived out in the core curriculum. The core curriculum was instituted as a means of encouraging cross-disciplinary academic experience conducive to developing critical thinking and is now a primary locus of diversity and inclusion within the curriculum.

Armstrong says in 2016 there was a recognition of a need for change on the part of the student body and the faculty regarding the core curriculum. The political climate at the time prompted the College to make improvements regarding diversity and inclusion and improve communication between BIPOC and other minority students and the faculty, staff and wider College community.

“There was a feeling that events around the world and in this country indicated that we needed to focus more on [diversity and inclusivity measures],” said Armstrong. “We know that this is important. We know that our students are going to have to lead a world that will be very different than the world of their parents and grandparents. And while they’re here, this is a time for us to have really good conversations.”

Three guidelines structured the conversations. First, the faculty wanted students to reflect on their identity. In other words, it was crucial that students come to realize the ways in which they are positioned socially, racially and economically. 

Secondly, students should be able to reflect on how their identity is shaped by the kinds of social relations which they are taken up, whether consciously or unconsciously. By coming to understand the ways in which their identity has been shaped by certain sociocultural norms and by certain social interactions, students would then be in a better position to make cross-cultural comparisons. 

Third, students should be able to grow in their capacity to have discussions on these difficult questions having to do with race, ethnicity, religion, gender and sexuality. It is not enough to merely be aware of identity-related issues – the College determined students should be able to engage in a conscientious dialectical endeavor in an attempt to reach some kind of consensus on hotly contested issues. 

The faculty created CTI 150: Identity and Society – a 7-week course required for all Jewell students – from these guidelines. They voted unanimously in favor of undertaking the development of CTI 150 in 2016. 

The faculty decided to structure the course by emphasizing the importance of guaranteeing that a set of common outcomes were realized, without setting a rigid syllabus. In this way, the faculty members could play to their own expertise in order to facilitate an already difficult conversation between students in the classroom. The ultimate end of CTI 150 was to create a space for difficult conversations, guided by the three common guidelines previously mentioned.

After five years, CTI 150 will be reviewed for its efficacy and evaluated according to metrics obtained from IDEA surveys. Armstrong claims the results of these surveys show that, compared to the general population of students, Jewell students are relatively competent in areas of intersubjectivity, which he says are related to diversity and inclusion efforts.

Armstrong cites three areas in which recent emphasis on Radical Inclusivity – including faculty workshops and the work of Dr. Rodney Smith, vice president for access and engagement – has had an effect: on the politics of representation, on the importance of grace and diversity as a measure of demographic representation, whereas inclusion is something else which the college should seek to promote more conscientiously. 

Students and faculty can face difficulties in voicing their own opinions and experiences, especially when their peers are not representative of their own backgrounds. He argues that it is easier to engage in the politics of representation. For example, in an attempt to hear a diversity of opinions, a professor may invite a student to speak and subconsciously expect the student to represent the entirety of their identity group. To do so is to encourage damaging essentialist thinking, which ignores the nuances of identity even with an in-group. Armstrong explains that professors must encourage students to speak without expecting representative opinions.

Armstrong thinks it is important to instill in students a kind of graceful philosophy when entering a space for difficult conversations. He stresses that not every conversation having to do with identity politics should be a “really intense conflict of ideologies.” 

“Sometimes you’re going to go in as a diplomat, and you’re to figure out: are there points, despite our disagreements, of common agreements and possible common action?” said Armstrong. 

The key to such conversations, according to Armstrong, is to remain respectful and to recognize that we are all human beings prone to make mistakes, especially when it comes to topics as difficult as those having to do with diversity and inclusivity. 

“Hopefully we are creating a zone… [where people can say], ‘Look what we’re dealing with, we have to touch. Let’s give each other some grace if we touch something that’s too hot and then we get burned,’” Armstrong said. 

Smith’s work emphasizes that the College should bring more energy to increasing inclusivity on campus, as diversity is a measure of demographic representation while inclusivity is a matter of belonging and cannot be unnaturally forced. Faculty workshops have been exploring what it means to have an inclusive community. 

Armstrong holds that, in terms of CTI 150, the core curriculum has been adapted well to meet the demands of rather unprecedented times. The core curriculum has some courses designated by a DU (United States Diversity) or a DG (Global Diversity) tag, which Armstrong claims are crucial to the furtherance of a student’s development of an intellectual in an increasingly global and intersectional environment. 

Due to COVID-19, the College has faced challenges in continuing its Radical Inclusivity work. Armstrong asserts it is more important now to continue to take note of classroom dynamics as much as possible and to try and learn from teaching and learning in these strained conditions. He explained that there may be certain online learning strategies that can be later used to supplement learning post-pandemic.

The College’s focus on Radical Inclusivity will continue to shape the CTI program. Armstrong said that further considerations should include the future of the Sacred and Secular courses and that restructuring may be necessary once several capstone course professors retire in the near future.