The announcement comes over a year after the College’s declaration of exigency and a previous round of layoffs.

Several of Jewell’s former departments were suffering from a faculty crunch even before this most recent downsizing. (While departments have been formally replaced with academic divisions, courses—and faculty—are still listed by department.) Five of Jewell’s departments—Business, Engineering, Mathematics, Philosophy, and Psychology—only have one full-time faculty member. Jewell intends to accommodate this shortage by adding to these departments: at the time of publication, the College is hiring assistant professors in Education, Engineering, and Psychology. Other changes include merging the Philosophy department into Political Science.

According to multiple sources, the College could not find space in budget plans to make these hires after student enrollment was lower than expected in the 2025-26 academic year.

Separately, the Board of Trustees voted to permanently halt student enrollment into the Oxbridge program, the only honors program remaining at Jewell. The College paused enrollment for the 2025-26 academic year after the College’s declaration of exigency. Current students in the program would be permitted to graduate with their majors. The College has reportedly expressed interest in opening another honors program built on the foundation of the Pryor Leadership program.

These changes suggest that the College is changing its program offerings by emphasizing Business and other pre-professional programs (in line with interim President Van Horn’s guidance).

If you are a student affected by program changes at Jewell and wish to talk to the Hilltop Monitor about changes in your program, you can contact us here.

This story is developing.

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.

This week, The Hilltop Monitor had the opportunity to sit down with William Jewell College’s Assistant Professor of Biology Dr. Joseph Shih to discuss all things biology, from graduate careers in biomedical sciences to second generation biotech to his patent.

Dr. Shih was moved to a tenure-track position at Jewell last year. This, combined with the departure of Dr. Rose Reynolds from the biology department, means that Dr. Shih took on a heavier course load than in past years. One of his favorite courses to teach is BIO 234: Genetics. Dr. Shih said he enjoys teaching the course because “genetics is all biology and constantly [an area of focus in biology] because it ranges from the central dogma of transcription and translation… to the organismal [level].” It serves as a constant language across multiple levels of analysis, from “the micro of micro levels” to an entire organism. He said he “loves the intersection between science, genetics [and] culture.”

Dr. Shih is also co-owner of a U.S. patent. During his time at Stanford University, he advised a team of students in creating systems to protect infants in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). When infants are in the NICU, the easiest way to take samples and give nutrients is through the umbilical cord. When designing the device, Dr. Shih and his team sought to “standardize care, make it faster and easier for nurses, and protect the umbilical cord from…getting a bacterial infection

Over the course of our conversation, Dr. Shih stressed the importance of human factors – collaboration and improvement – in science and research. When he applied to both graduate school and medical school, a process he “would not recommend to anybody,” he chose to attend graduate school because of how competitive medical schools were at the time. Dr. Shih said he thinks that there’s still a competitive atmosphere at the top medical schools, but “medicine is getting around to the fact that it needs to be collaborative and not as competitive…it’s always a team to treat a patient.”

This philosophy of collaboration and improvement has had a significant impact on the way that Dr. Shih does research. He collaborates with his wife, Biology Chair Dr. Lilah Rahn-Lee, on second-generation biotech. This second-generation biotech focuses on introducing, rather than making, the desired product; “the idea is [to] make a transgenic organism that will do [a] natural process, just better.”

Outside the classroom and the lab, Dr. Shih enjoys the company of Dr. Lilah Rahn-Lee and their 2- and 4-year-old boys. His hobbies include surfing (he’s even surfed the day before a hurricane), swimming and camping.

As of Fall 2022, Dr. Gary Armstrong, professor of political science, has been appointed Interim Vice President of Academic Affairs.

The Vice President of Academic Affairs (or VPAA) is best understood in the context of the previous role that it partially replaced – that of the Provost. The Provost, in the absence of the President, is the chief executive officer of the college. The Provost supervised numerous aspects of the William Jewell College’s affairs, including student life, academic affairs and sometimes enrollment and marketing. 

The College’s adoption of The Flight Plan is what precipitated the dissolution of the Provost role. The Flight Plan describes the college’s long-term, institutional trajectory goals, including plans to increase the student body to 2,000 students, an increase to student diversity to 50% and a $500 million endowment. 

Because these goals are so numerous and so ambitious, Dr. Elizabeth MacLeod Walls, President of the College, decided that the role of provost needed to be split into three roles. In this way, one vice president would focus on just academic affairs, another on student life and another on enrollment and marketing. This split would facilitate the attainment of the goals of the Flight Plan. 

Armstrong’s role as Interim Vice President of Academic Affairs encompasses the academic affairs section of the previous provost role. This role is complemented by the Vice President of Access and Engagement, currently Dr. Rodney Smith, and the Vice President of Marketing, Enrollment and Student Life, currently Eric Blair.

According to Armstrong, “[The]… principal job [of the Vice President of Academic Affairs] is to encourage support [and] lead excellence in academic affairs under our new strategic priorities of highest quality and highest access [in education]. [The Vice President of Academic Affairs] also [leads] and [develops] new academic programs, [while] ensuring assessment of them in their alignment towards the mission.”

Armstrong offered some examples of just how the Vice President role directly affected the student body, faculty and staff.

On the student end: Armstrong – in his capacity as Interim Vice President – hears several complaints and appeals. These include appeals concerning final grades in a class, unfair collegiate policies and complaints about the behavior of faculty at the college; although these complaints are heard by the appropriate department head first.

On the faculty end: Armstrong said he leads the department chairs, who are “the key people in building the courses, building the curricula and…the key assessment officers.” 

Though Armstrong was not able to provide the details of these projects, he is working with the faculty to develop three major structural changes within the college’s curriculum. Furthermore, Armstrong is helping faculty construct a cohesive narrative describing their particular coursework and programs in preparation for an upcoming accreditation visit from the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) in October. Finally, Armstrong helps to set the agenda for faculty meetings, which are then led by the Faculty Council Chair. 

All department chairs serve under the appointment of the Vice President of Academic Affairs. Furthermore, though this is not always the case, the Vice President of Academic Affairs can help with academic searches for candidates  to fill in vacant faculty positions; the Vice President makes final recommendations for these roles to the President.

On the staff end: several staff are under the direct purview of the Vice President role. These include such roles as Director of Teaching and Learning Technologies, Heath Hase, and Assistant Dean for Student Success, Pharamond Guice. Working with these staff members, Armstrong has been helping to develop the new Student Success Center, an undertaking which revamps the old Academic Success Center by implementing new training strategies for tutors and expanding the range of available subjects that are tutored. Armstrong adds that the strategy surrounding the Student Success Center is part of the college’s ongoing commitment to raising graduation rates from around 60% to closer to 80%.

The VPAA role is also concerned with the budget for academic affairs. “The cool part of the budget is always knowing so many excellent things going on here, and there’s more of them than we can possibly afford,” Armstrong said. “The good news is that when you’re working on the best budget stuff or the hardest budget stuff, it’s not a choice between good and bad stuff; it’s a choice between really good, really good, really good and unfortunately we can’t do it all.” 

Armstrong is specifically Interim VPAA and will eventually be replaced. Armstrong asserts that he is not a candidate for a permanent position: “I’m happy to help the college in the moment, but my love is the classroom and working with students and helping to administer programs where I’m teaching.”

In fact, there is a search committee specifically for a permanent VPAA role. This committee has received numerous applications for this role – this committee has now narrowed potential candidates to the extent that Zoom interviews will begin soon. 
“The plan is that they will have the finalists on campus in or by November, and be ready to make an offer… so there’s a chance that a new person will be here in January… But there’s a bigger chance that… they’ll start next academic year,” Armstrong said.

Though Dr. Armstrong’s role as Interim VPAA is somewhat constrained given its limited temporal nature, there have already been some important changes that have taken place under his leadership. For example, there was a persistent issue with the ratio of advisors to advisees when it came to first-year college students. In some cases, as in departments like business and nursing, the number of advisees allotted to one or two advisors was quite large. Thus, the faculty and Armstrong came to the conclusion that all full-time faculty have to have a minimum of ten primary advisees. Thus, faculty advisors will now mentor freshmen and sophomores who are not in their academic department – an action that has led to increased training overall.

On the whole, changes like the addition of the Vice President of Academic Affairs role represent an ongoing commitment to be a “student-ready” college. As Dr. Armstrong stated, “Jewell wants to be student-ready and focus on whether we’re student-ready, not whether our college students are college-ready.”