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. 

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.

Graduated members of the class of 2020 had the chance to return to campus with two invited guests for commencement. The traditional final Walk Around the Quad took place at 8:45 a.m. before commencement started at 9 a.m. Only ticket holders were allowed to be in attendance. A livestream of the commencement ceremony was available on YouTube and can now be watched in its entirety.

Susan Arbo, interim associate director of annual giving and director of ceremonies & signature events, described the planning process for the in-person graduation.

“[On] July 9, Operation Safe Campus and the Cabinet determined that we needed to amend the usual plan to include an outdoor graduation ceremony only in Greene Stadium, eliminating Baccalaureate and other gatherings from the schedule that could pose a risk to our community.  Walk Around the Quad was held but only the Platform Party was in attendance; all guests were seated in the stadium,” said Arbo.

A total of 112 graduates signed up to attend commencement, but some dropped out between signing up and graduation. One hundred graduates ultimately walked the stage.

“Because no [current] students and a limited number of faculty and staff were to be involved, the only faculty in attendance were the six Senior Marshals – Alan Holiman (who has served as Head Senior Marshal 11 times since 2006), Blane Baker, Fletcher Cox, Debbie Chasteen, Jeanine Haistings and Nathan Wyman. Instead of Cardinal Hosts, about 25 staff members from Advancement, Admission and Student Life prepared the stadium, the honorees and the students for the ceremony and served as ushers for the guests. Only a handful remained for the ceremony itself,” Arbo said. 

In addition to limiting the number of guests, faculty and staff present at graduation, additional COVID-19 precautions included mask requirements and distancing.

“All graduates and their guests were required to wear masks on campus and were asked to leave the campus by 12:15 p.m. All guests had assigned seating in the bleachers and graduates’ chairs were spaced 6’ apart on the field and track. The procession was lined up on Mississippi Street instead of Gano Chapel. After the ceremony, the grads and their guests could take photos on campus and meet with current students outdoors,” said Arbo.

“Just after 7:00 a.m., as the custodians had finished drying all the chairs for the grads and the bleachers for the guests from the night’s dew, a fine drizzle of rain came down for about seven minutes and everything had to be dried again before the signs could be taped on all the seats,” Arbo continued. “But after that, it was a glorious morning to celebrate the Class of 2020. The 9:00 a.m. ceremony finished at 10:15 a.m. and everyone gathered on the field for photos and farewells. It was beautiful.”

Arbo described that the general reaction to the commencement ceremony has been positive. Participants in the ceremony seemed excited to participate and have the chance to celebrate graduates and their accomplishments.

Ian McBride, ’20, shared his experience of the event and how he believes parents appreciated the in-person event.

“Honestly [having the in-person ceremony] made everyone’s parents super happy and I think it gave me and others closure… The only odd thing was that neither the grads [nor] guests were [temperature-checked] presumably so everyone could walk and witness, but it still was not what [the College] said would occur or what Jewell policy states. The final thought I had was it was odd that the parents couldn’t go to the final walk around the Quad but that after the ceremony everyone was free to roam wherever for photos,” McBride said.

Dr. Elizabeth Macleod Walls, president of the College, shared her experience of the ceremony.

“It was more gratifying than I can say to see our 2020 graduates back on The Hill for our Commencement Convocation. Waiting until we were two weeks into the semester allowed us to ensure that our campus was prepared and as safe as possible. When our graduates walked across the stage, we had no active [COVID-19] cases on campus—and we were careful to adhere to all of our Operation Safe Campus protocols before, during and after the ceremony,” said MacLeod Walls.

Arbo explained that a total of 160 devices logged in to watch the livestream of the ceremony. She is confident even more people will watch the recordings of both the ceremony and the Walk Around the Quad after being posted to the website. All graduates unable to attend the ceremony will receive copies of the program.

Karen Daniel, retired executive director, chief financial officer and president of the Global Finance & Technology Solutions division for Black & Veatch, gave the commencement address. Jeremy Hofman, ’20, was the senior elected to speak at commencement.

Hofman described his experience of the day.

“Overall, I really enjoyed the day. It was great to be back on campus, and while I thought a socially-distanced graduation with minimal guests would be a bummer, it actually felt a lot like a normal graduation. I definitely think it was worth it, a virtual graduation would’ve been underwhelming. The main thing that was a bit disappointing was the fact that I only got to see friends for a couple hours, if that, and then had to turn around and say bye again. It was also disappointing that we couldn’t see most of our professors. But, it was really good to see the faculty and staff members who were a part of it, and it was clear it meant a lot to them to give us a real graduation,” Hofman said.

“In my speech, I wanted to talk about some of the things that were unique to our class, and then explain some of the ways I thought Jewell prepared me to handle a massive change like the pandemic,” Hofman continued. “Our class has seen a lot of change at Jewell, and the ability to accept change and move forward is an under appreciated lesson we learn at Jewell.  I really just wanted to tell my classmates that we all have a lot to be proud of!”

MacLeod Walls commented on the speeches and the College’s conferral of honorary degrees.

“The messages from Karen Daniel and Jeremy Hofman acknowledged the unique moment, and charged the graduating class with embracing this opportunity for meaningful change. We were pleased to confer Honorary Doctorates on Leo Morton and Dave Cummings, advancing an important Jewell tradition even during exceptional times. I am especially grateful to the staff who worked hard behind the scenes to manage all of the logistics associated with the event. It was a great day to be a Cardinal!,” said MacLeod Walls.

Arbo concluded by thanking all of those involved in giving the class of 2020 their commencement ceremony.

“I am very grateful to the faculty and staff who volunteered to give the Class of 2020 and their parents some much needed closure and to create terrific memories for them! It was a GREAT day to be a Cardinal!” said Arbo.

Photos courtesy of https://www.photos.jewell.edu/

On Sept. 6, Dr. MacLeod Walls, president of William Jewell College, welcomed students, faculty and guests to the 170th Opening Convocation.She also introduced this year’s William F. Yates Distinguished Service Awardees: Esther L. George, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, and Pedro A. Zamora, executive director of the Hispanic Economic Development Corporation.

George was recognized for her efforts to support economic development. She has supervised nearly 1,000 banks in seven state regions and advised Washington on the modernization of the Federal Reserve.

Zamora was recognized for his contributions to the Hispanic community. He has supported various initiatives to decrease income disparity, homelessness, lack of education and gentrification in low income areas of Kansas City.

Jewell faculty members were recognized as well.. Dr. Joseph Shih was introduced as an assistant professor of biology, the Carl F. Teacher Award went to Dr. Deborah Chasteen for her outstanding service to the Jewell Community and Dr. Lori Wetmore was lauded as Advisor of the Year.

Many of the speeches given at the convocation, particularly those given by Lyndell W. Benton, mayor of Liberty, and Dr. Maurice A. Watson, Of Counsel at Husch Blackwell, challenged the incoming class at Jewell to break away from the influence of tribalism and critically assess their community  in order to improve it.

Musical performances were given by Dr. Dustin Williams, Michael Cervantes, professor  Shelly Peters, professor Chris White, Laurence Dahsten, Dr. Anne Marie Rigler and Jewell’s concert choir, directed by Dr. Anthony Maglione.