David Sallee – The Hilltop Monitor

An account of the Racial Reconciliation Commission’s monthly meeting on Feb. 27

Agatha Echenique — Fri, 24 Mar 2023 14:00:00 +0000

Gano Chapel, Quad, Jewell Campus. Courtesy of Catherine Dema.

On Feb. 27, Rodney Smith, vice president for access and engagement and chair of the Racial Reconciliation Commission (RRC), led the RRC’s monthly meeting. This meeting was open to all members of the Jewell community. The objective of this meeting was to brief RRC members and other interested parties on the RRC’s progress in terms of its implementation of certain initiatives introduced on Nov. 10. Specifically, Smith discussed feedback provided by the faculty on these initiatives. The RRC has plans to meet with other groups to receive feedback, including Student Senate and the alumni of color advisory group. To date, the RRC has presented their initiatives to the administrative council, the alumni board of governors, and faculty council.

Briefly, these initiatives are: 1) addressing historical inaccuracy; 2) commemoration; 3) repair and restoration and 4) creating a better future. The RRC’s implementation of these initiatives is guided by the following principles: 1) collaboration; 2) transparency; 3) continuous learning and 4) intentional representation.

RRC members in attendance included: Mark Mathes, an alumnus of William Jewell College; Cecilia Robinson, professor emerita of English and historian of Clay County African American Legacy, Inc.; Andrew Pratt, dean emeritus of the chapel; Robert Powers, electronic resources and archives librarian; David Sallee, former president of Jewell; Clark Morris, vice president for advancement and head of the Harriman-Jewell series; Keith Pence, member of the Board of Trustees; Carmaletta Williams, executive director of Mid-America Black Archives; Donna Gardner, professor emerita of education and Owen Kerrigan, freshman political science major. Kerrigan was announced as the newest member of the RRC at this meeting.

Members of the Jewell community present – apart from the Hilltop Monitor – were Rebecca Hamlett, director of library services and Traci Parker-Gray, director of diversity of equity, access and engagement.

Two major recommendations made by faculty were discussed at the meeting. An additional consideration concerned renaming rooms is raised in conjunction with faculty’s first recommendation.

On faculty’s first recommendation
The first concerned the proposal to rename the RRC the “Katherine ‘Aunt Kitty’ Thompson Alexander Project.” Katherine Thompson Alexander was a Black woman who was employed as a cook by the William Jewell College Boarding Club for 25 years during the nineteenth century. Some faculty members proposed that the nickname ‘Aunt Kitty’ be removed from the consideration in the new name for the RRC, as terms of endearment and nicknames were often used by white people in power to infantilize or otherwise demean people of color under their employ. This is because these terms of endearment or nicknames often reinforce negative racial stereotypes, such as the figure of the black mammy.

The recommendation was discussed by RRC members. Robinson noted that Alexander seemed to embrace her role as ‘aunt’ at the College. Further, she argued that an instance where Alexander loaned 50 cents to a Jewell student indicated that she was economically independent and therefore less subject to infantilizing treatment. However, Pence noted that – whatever the connotations of the name ‘Aunt Kitty’ – the new name would be seen by members of the broader Kansas City and Liberty community. Most likely, these individuals will not know Alexander’s story. Without this important historical context, the name ‘Aunt Kitty’ by itself could reinforce negative racial stereotypes.

After this discussion, Smith concluded that ‘Aunt Kitty’ should be removed. Robinson asked whether the RRC members present would be voting on this decision. Smith asked the RRC members present whether a vote should be conducted, to which Powers responded by asking all commissioners in favor of changing the proposal to rename the RRC to raise their hands. Then the commission members clarified that they were voting to remove ‘aunt’ from ‘Aunt Kitty,’ though Smith stated that he would entertain a motion to remove ‘Aunt Kitty’ entirely from the renaming proposal. No such motion was started and the commission members voted unanimously to remove ‘aunt’ from the Katherine ‘Aunt Kitty’ Alexander Project.

Smith then clarified that these initiatives were just recommendations, meaning that the vote did not officially change the RRC’s name until the Board of Trustees approved the recommendation. However, this spurred some discussion as to the exact role of the Board of Trustees in the RRC’s recommendations. Pence argued that the Board of Trustees had not named the RRC to begin with; whoever had originally come up with the name should decide whether or not to approve the recommendation to rename the RRC. Smith stated that the RRC’s name was decided by himself and Elizabeth Macleod Walls, president of the College. However, Smith reasserted that he was going to present all these recommendations to the Board of Trustees.

An additional consideration: Who renames what?
Smith also noted that the original slide wherein recommendations under the heading of ‘Commemoration’ were listed had misspelled Audrey Burchette’s name. The RRC had recommended that the Alexander Doniphan room in Brown Hall be renamed in her honor in this slide.

There was some confusion, however, as to whether this recommendation had already been brought to the Board of Trustees. Afterall, in official communications such as the View From the Hill, the room is referred to as the Audrey Burchette room. However, Smith stated this had been done only unofficially; that is to say, the room had been referred to as the Audrey Burchette room only in verbal, not written communications. According to Smith, this recommendation had to be presented to the Board before it was made official.

However, Pence stated that it was his belief that the Board does not get involved in the process of renaming rooms, as this was an operational affair outside of the Board’s scope. The Board’s task is to set direction. Instead, he suggested that whatever part of the College applies names to rooms would be the group to receive the recommendation.

Mathes disagreed with Pence. He asserted that it was “critically important, even if the Board of Trustees does not see naming rooms as part of what they do, [that] the Board of Trustees has to stand up and say we recognize all of this and put it on a vote.” Mathes underscored the importance of ownership: the outcome of the vote and who voted for and against what should be made public.

In an attempt to sort out these confusions, Morris recommended that Macleod Walls and the Board of Trustees should ‘ferry out’ who should have what responsibilities in connection with the RRC’s initiatives and recommendations. In his mind, he believed that all these recommendations should be presented to Macleod Walls, who would then decide which of these recommendations should be voted on by the Board.

Further, Pratt reminded the other commission members that the purpose of this meeting was for Smith to brief those present on faculty feedback to the RRC. He stated that he “had not come prepared to vote on every recommendation,” although he thought this was a good idea. Pratt added that votes should be scheduled to give commission members time to prepare.

Gardner agreed with Pratt in terms of the importance of voting and also hearing feedback from various groups. However, she urged that it was crucial that the RRC vote “in the most timely fashion possible.” Further, the RRC should clarify the process by which these votes occur. This includes clarifying who approves what recommendations and how.

On the Faculty’s Second Recommendation
Gardner’s comments put the commission in a position to discuss the faculty’s second major recommendation to the RRC: the importance of a transparent, formal decision-making procedure.

Kerrigan suggested the following structure for the implementation of the RRC’s recommendations and initiatives. First, feedback should be gathered from as many relevant groups as possible. Then the commissioners would vote on issues as they arose from the feedback. A list of recommendations would be compiled from these votes, which would then be presented to Macleod Walls. Macleod Walls would then decide which recommendations required Board approval and which did not. Smith approved this structure.

This spurred a discussion as to what groups should be asked to provide feedback and how. Kerrigan noted that Student Senate has plans to have a town hall on the RRC’s initiatives – this would give the general student body an opportunity to provide feedback to the RRC. Kerrigan was unsure of the timeline of this town hall at the time of the meeting, though he promised to talk to the relevant parties to ascertain this information.

Robinson then listed the recommendations which required feedback and subsequent approval from Macleod Walls: 1) the RRC’s statement of purpose must be approved; 2) the proposal to rename the RRC; 3) the proposal to rename the Doniphan room; 4) the proposal to rename Jewell Hall and 5) the proposal to develop a Freedom Walk on the Quad. Robinson, alongside Parker-Gray, underscored the importance of giving Black Student Alliance (BSA) the opportunity to give feedback on these recommendations.

Smith noted that, because the Board of Trustees meets just three times a year, it would be difficult to have a completed list of recommendations by the time the Board meets again. Thus, it would likely be the case that this process of getting feedback, voting, and then getting Board approval would have to wait to be completed until the Board’s October meeting.

Hamlett then returned the conversation to faculty’s feedback concerning the RRC’s procedures. Hamlett stated that faculty wanted to understand how feedback would be gathered and synthesized and, finally, how this feedback would be presented to the administration. Hamlett asked whether it might be possible for the RRC’s presentation, first shown on Nov. 10, to be publicized so that the faculty could have the opportunity to provide ample, carefully considered feedback.

Powers added that faculty cited that faculty groups have particular by-laws that govern their operations. The faculty wanted to know whether the RRC has any such by-laws, how votes are conducted, whether there are minutes for the RRC’s meetings and how these are published, and other such procedural matters. In response, Mathes asked whether faculty “understand that this isn’t a faculty meeting or commission, and what comes out of it is more important than the governance of a committee.”

Pratt concurred with Mathes, stating that “faculty committees are standing committees that continue their work year after year, with different people rotating on and off the committees. And so it’s for continuity’s sake… [thus] it’s more important in those cases to have established procedures, so that the committee can continue to function… There’s never been a Racial Reconciliation Commission before and it may be that the Racial Reconciliation Commission persists once this first round of work is done, then I think it will be important to do those things. But in a sense, I think that it’s not applicable: those types of comments are not applicable to this kind of commission, although… it’s important to have the votes and the records and be transparent.”

Smith ended by stating that he is willing to post the RRC’s materials online, as well as the RRC’s meeting minutes, and calendar dates for meetings with stakeholder groups. The Hilltop Monitor will continue reporting on the RRC’s progress with respect to its initiatives and recommendations.

Farewell to the Sallees

Brett Stone — Sat, 30 Apr 2016 00:39:38 +0000

This is the final article in a multipart series on William Jewell College’s presidents- past, present and future.

After serving for 16 years at William Jewell College, President Dr. David Sallee and Mary Sallee are retiring. “The Hilltop Monitor” had a chance to sit down with them to discuss Jewell’s past, present and future. David’s responses are denoted by DS, and Mary’s, MS.

What was a Jewell memory you found yourself thinking of today?

DS: Senior dinners are an important memory for us.

MS: For us, senior dinners were a way to personally connect with students we might not otherwise connect with before they graduated. Sometimes you all don’t realize we’ve been watching you for four years. We’ve seen you in performances, we’ve seen you in choirs, we’ve seen you in symphonic band, we’ve studied the program to make sure we know what your names are. So we feel like we have a connection to you, whereas you may not realize that that connection exists.

What are your hopes for Jewell’s future?

DS: Generally, that it continue to thrive, the value of the degree continue to increase and the quality of the product continue to improve, whatever that means. In reality, it’s hard to know. It would be hard to know if I were to still be here.

MS: One of the things we don’t realize, changes come incrementally. Improvements come incrementally. And we don’t even realize they’re happening as they’re happening. As you look back you can see a change.

DS: I think [Jewell] is a much more open and welcoming place than it used to be, and I’d like to see that continue as well.

MS: And strengthen.

How would you both like to be remembered?

DS: Well, first, just to be remembered. We’re going to be old news really fast. But I think, just in a way of people feeling like it was a good period of time, that it was a positive period of time and that the college improved in whatever ways it improved.

MS: My hope would be that I would be remembered for fostering community. There are a lot of college campuses where there’s a real “us” versus “them” [mentality]. I don’t feel that kind of push back from students towards the administration at William Jewell, or the faculty towards the administration. And I would like to think that the things that have happened, not necessarily because of us, but the things that have happened since we’ve been here, have helped promote community. One of those things, for instance, is Jewell Time. That’s not always been here. If you think about that moment on Friday mornings where the wholecampus can gather, where the whole campus can recognize a pocket of excellence [at the College], that’s a great thing that fosters community.

How have you both changed since your time here?

DS: I think we have learned a lot. Learned more than I have done, and wished I had known a lot of things 15 years ago that I know now. I would have done a lot of things differently.

Such as?

DS: Probably would handle structure a little differently, [such as] structure with boards, structure with senior leadership at the College. Might have built things a little differently. Probably would act quicker on some things than when I did it, but you always look back and say, “I should have done this or that.” It’s a lot easier in hindsight than it is in the moment. But I think one of the things I’ve learned is to move more quickly than what I did at times.

What accomplishments are you most proud of here?

DS: I mentioned earlier being a more open and welcoming place. I think that’s a very important part of the institution now. In terms of things that happened, the integration of technology at a high level into teaching and learning. That would include the Pryor Learning Commons and Jewellverse. I really like the Journey Grants program, and getting an addition to the Union built and then Shumaker, in terms of physical changes.

MS: That also had cultural impact. Think of your lives if you didn’t have that space in the Union or the space in the PLC, it would be different socially, culturally. So many differences in the way you do what you do. Those things don’t really feel like accomplishments, because it isn’t just one person doing them. Those are things that happened, but there’s a whole community working to make them happen. So that’s a hard question to answer.

DS: So things that were done while we were here or things that have changed, I put them in that category.

What advice would you like to give to future student leaders at Jewell?

DS: The main thing is to participate, to engage. Not to sit back and assume that you don’t have any influence. Students should not feel like they are not empowered. Students should remember that you all change things by being here, in the same way we change things by being here. So you shouldn’t get to the end of a career and say, “Well nothing happened,” because as you look back you’ll see a lot of things that are different, and they’re different because of things you all did in one form or another. Whether it’s cultural change or something else. So you all are influencing the life of the College every day just like we are, sometimes it just doesn’t feel that way.

What drew you to Jewell 16 years ago?

DS: We’d always been at places like this, 40 years in higher education. 17 years at one place, Oklahoma Baptist University, so a very similar place in many ways, seven years at Luther College, a very similar place in many ways. So it was the kind of place that we were comfortable in, and the kind of place where our philosophy fit. Beyond being the right kind of place, we knew a lot about Jewell because our son was a ’99 graduate of the College. Beyond that, it was a presidency. So if you want to be a president you take the presidency, when it comes along.

What was the most impressive thing you’ve seen a group of students do?

DS: I think that goes way back to the Missouri Baptist Convention situation. Because all that started with student conversation, it wasn’t a College conversation. Students handled that really well, and then it became a really difficult issue. It started as, “Hey we’re in Student Senate and we’re talking about this and I have an amendment,” and suddenly it was Channel 9 and Channel 5 and the Missouri Baptist Convention and Kansas City Star. It became something that was bigger than it started out as, but they handled it really well. How they handled all that was the most impressive thing.

MS: I think in general, what you as students do think about, recognize, value, is impressive. The words “leadership” and “service” are an integral part of every organization on campus. Those words are woven into every organization’s mission. It changes who you all are, because that’s language that pervades the campus.

DS: I think there’s sincerity to that here that isn’t necessarily true in lots places. A lot of those kinds of things end up becoming resume builders in a lot of places, but there’s a feeling here that we’re actually trying to help.

Has there been something, such as a person or book, that has impacted your leadership?

DS: It probably changes over time. It’s a collection of people, places, things, experiences and circumstances that go together. And I think there’s frequently more credit given to intentionality and less credit to luck than should be [given]. And I say that partly because there are things in our experience that turn out to serve us well here that we had no idea back when it happened. One of the truths that you learn, a lot of people will say if they’re in a leadership role, “I don’t care if people like me or not, by golly, as long as they respect me.” I happen to be at the other end of the spectrum. I think if they like you, you have a much better chance of getting things done than if they don’t like you. People are so influenced by who they like, what they like, that is a very important piece of effective leadership.

One of the challenges in this stuff is, you don’t know what’s going to happen. So you don’t know what things you’re going to respond to. We had no idea we were going to have a tornado, we had no idea we were going to have a Missouri Baptist Convention issue, you don’t know what’s happening so you don’t know how to prepare. And you don’t know if you’re dealing with it rightly at the moment or not. Maybe you are, maybe you aren’t. So you look back on a period of time and there’s so many things going on and going into the outcomes that it can’t be a single person who’s dramatically effecting [my leadership].

How are you feeling about leaving?

DS: It’s a mix for me. There are days when I would say, “I don’t want to go. I need to keep going, I need to stay here.” There are other days when it’s very clear, “Nope, this is the right thing, the right time, exactly the right thing to do.” The challenge is those aren’t really predictable responses.

MS: I’m savoring every moment.

Tell us a funny Jewell story.

MS: I remember at one senior dinner a woman feeling like she needed to confess all of the places she’s been where she wasn’t supposed to be. So she sat there at the table telling us all the rooftops she’d been on, the attics she’d been in, all those kinds of things. It felt like a confessional.

Have you ever seen someone climb onto the roof of the Union from your house?

DS: Yeah, I was on the front porch one day in the spring—because people do stuff in the spring they shouldn’t do—and there were two women on the roof of the Union. Being on the flat roof is one thing, but then they were up on the other roof where it’s tilted. What are you doing?! It’s crazy. How much better can the sunbathing be on the Union than on the ground?

Anything else you’d like to add?

DS: It’s been great. It’s been a lot of fun. You do tend to remember the fun stuff and the good things. The bad things tend to recede in importance over time. That’s certainly the way it is for us.

MS: It’s like childbirth: you forget the painful parts, you just remember the glorious parts. You remember profound things students have done and the way they make us look differently at our jobs because of all the efforts they are putting out. It’s just been a real privilege.

DS: Yeah, that’s the right word.

Photos by Chandler Eaton.

An update on the presidential search

Sarah Crosley — Thu, 03 Dec 2015 03:22:28 +0000

On June 11, 2015, President Sallee announced that he would be retiring from William Jewell College in August 2016. In response, the Board of Trustees created a Presidential Search Committee so that a replacement for Sallee could be found.

By Aug. 31, 2015, the search committee had its first meeting and met with Student Senate, faculty and staff members and the Board of Trustees. The committee is composed of seven trustees, including the two who serve as the Chair and Vice Chair of the committee, but also two faculty members, Dr. Gary Armstrong and Dr. Donna Garner, a staff member, Shawn Weigel, an alumna, Eileen Houston-Stewart, and a current student, Freja Ingelstam.

But what have they been doing since that first August meeting?

The College has hired a search firm to help narrow down the pool of candidates. AGB Search has recently helped Millsaps College appoint a new vice president of finance and The College of Wooster appoint a new president, and the firm is currently helping Jewell find it’s 15th president. Specifically, Dr. Thomas Courtice and Dr. Oscar Page from AGB Search are working with the committee.

The due date for applicants interested in the position was Nov. 30. Before that, according to a statement posted by Susan Chambers, chair of the search committee, and John Gill, chair of the Board of Trustees, on the Jewell website, the committee began to look over applications a few days before the due date, and they have meetings scheduled in December to select candidates for interviews.

The formal interviews will take place in January. The candidates who were chosen will be interviewed by an expanded version of the search committee, including more trustees, faculty, staff and students. Once an interview has been finished, all the members of the committee will be invited to share their opinions with the Board of Trustees. The Board will make the final selection.

According to the President Profile for the College’s search, applicants who are “experienced and highly qualified leaders who are committed to providing excellent liberal arts and professional undergraduate programs for students on a beautiful residential campus” are welcome to apply.

This profile gives an overview of the College’s faculty members, students, campus life, academic statistics and other points of distinction. What seems most pertinent to a potential presidential candidate is the section labelled as “Leadership Opportunities for New President.”

It is under this section that challenges, opportunities and desired attributes of a new leader are listed.

Some of the desired attributes include: “experience in senior level administration”; a record of significant accomplishments in leadership roles”; and “a demonstrated history of sound fiscal management, executive experience and demonstrated leadership, management and mentoring skills.”

Freja Inglestam, junior international relations and history major, is the student representative on the Presidential Search Committee.

“I consider it a great honor to have the opportunity to serve on the committee. It is great to be part of this important process for Jewell as well as a valuable learning experience and I am enjoying learning more about the other branches of Jewell than what we are naturally exposed to as students,” said Inglestam.

Feature photo by Kristen Agar. Infographic by Kelsey Neth.