Recently, several Jewell students have spearheaded projects critiquing aspects of life on the Hill and calling for change. In the last few years, we saw students challenge William Jewell College’s whitewashing of the history of campus buildings with the Slavery, Memory, and Justice project (SMJP), which eventually culminated in Jewell’s gesture of racial reconciliation and an examination of the role of slavery in Jewell’s past. Currently, Jewell is undergoing a lot of changes as a result of the recent declaration of financial exigency, and students have stepped up to demand openness throughout this process as well.

The focus of this article, however, is even more recent. Last semester, a group of students presented their findings of racial bias in the dorm lottery process, as well as detailing inadequate living conditions, particularly in Browning Hall. One of those students, Jacob Tetlow, has worked as an RA in Melrose Hall for several semesters. During this semester’s Duke Colloquium, he co-presented a further project about the Jewell experience, mentioning specific ways students’ lives could be improved by the college’s administration. 

This project was presented as a set with Mason Sullivan’s Black Freedom Struggle Symposium documentary, which addressed similar themes. While Mason highlighted the ability of Jewell’s small size to produce a tight-knit community, the stellar faculty we have the privilege of learning with, and the excellent academics, he found that Jewell has a need for more diversity and cultural knowledge within the student body. “I think in order for Jewell’s administration to improve on their recruitment practices and acknowledgement of different cultural groups they need to do more to have other cultures feel accepted on campus,” Mason stated in an interview with the Hilltop Monitor. “Recruiting students from different backgrounds is a good place to start, and over my last four years here I have been seeing major improvements in the amount of diversity I see on campus.” 

While the documentary maintains a mostly upbeat tone, Mason does acknowledge that it is “[a glimpse] into the reality of the school, not just what gets advertised, and … a critique and a call to action for administrators to see how the students feel on certain things and what that means for the future of the college.” As Jewell goes through changes, students have consistently stepped up to share their opinions and insights with administration, and call leadership to action on certain issues that affect the student body but may not be felt by higher-ups. Students often put themselves in a tenuous position by calling out the institution at which they are studying, so it is extremely important to maintain an accepting environment during this process. 

For the most part, Jewell has provided that accepting environment. Mason Sullivan noted that the response to his project was overwhelmingly positive, and that “the president of the college [then-interim president Susan Chambers] at that time came up to [him] afterwards to tell [him] how much she enjoyed it and asked what she could do to help” after his first presentation of the documentary at the Black Freedom Struggle Symposium. Mason also told the Monitor that Jewell faculty, staff, and students were nothing but supportive, expressing gratitude “for the support I got from faculty like Dr. Howard, [College chaplain] Rev. Dowling, and [admissions counselor] Will Palmer who were adamant to get this story to the people who needed to see it.”

Jacob Tetlow also recalls that “everybody that I’ve interacted with on the admin side that has talked to me about the presentation, it’s been like what you’d expect from critical thinking college,” denying that he faced difficulties from the college during the research and presentation process. However, academic freedom concerns have surfaced, especially within Jacob’s RA role and his ties to Student Life.

Mistakes Made, Mistakes Corrected 

On Apr. 17, the Student Life department informed Melrose RA Jacob Tetlow that he would not be returning to his position for the 2026-2027 school year.

When he scheduled an Apr. 22 meeting with Student Life asking why he was removed from his position, Student Life, represented by Greek Life coordinator Ryan West and Assistant Dean of Students Jennifer Herzog, originally gave two reasons. The first was that he had been too lenient regarding “room switching” in Melrose. Melrose is the only suite-style dorm not part of Greek row. Jacob told the Hilltop Monitor that “[t]o get into Melrose, you have to apply to be in a lottery, and these people wanted specific roommates and stuff, and so they just wanted to ensure that their team could make it into Melrose and then they sorted it amongst themselves afterwards.” Since Tetlow did not have the authority to unilaterally switch student rooms, he told the students that they needed to talk to Student Life. Tetlow confirms that this incident was not brought up to him until the meeting in which he was let go.

The second was that Student Life believed Tetlow had not followed the proper “chain of command” on the Browning Project he conducted last year. The project uncovered evidence of racial disparities in Jewell housing; the percentage of Black students living in Browning Hall, seen as one of the worst-quality dorms by residential students, was substantially higher than other dorms. (According to project data, about 30% of Browning residents are Black, compared with approximately 10% in Mathes, Eaton, Melrose, and Jones.) As part of the project, the team interviewed then-Dean of Students Ernie Stufflebean, Vice President of Marketing, Enrollment and Student Life Eric Blair, and others to obtain critical residential data for use in their project. 

According to Tetlow, Student Life stated that the project’s results made some College employees uneasy; Tetlow claimed that “[they] didn’t tell me who else, but [a Student Life staff member] did say that other people were made uncomfortable by that presentation that we gave, and it pushed buttons.” In a request for comment, College administrators confirmed to the Hilltop Monitor that “it was reported to leadership that a staff member’s personal opinion or response to Jacob’s research was shared and influenced decision-making to some extent.”

YikYak exploded with the news, to the point that peers in classes were asking about what was going on. On the night of April 21—twelve hours before Tetlow and colleagues presented a different documentary about campus community at Duke Colloquium—Jacob received a text from Eric Blair asking to meet with himself, President Drew Van Horn, and the Vice President for Academic Affairs (VPAA) Keli Braitman, who was present to resolve concerns about academic freedom. The meeting took place at noon on Duke Colloquium, and in it Tetlow was offered his position back. 

College administrators told the Hilltop Monitor that “In consultation with the President, Dr. Van Horn, VPAA, Dr. Braitman, and VPEM, Mr. Blair, Assistant Dean of Students and Director of Residence Life, Ms. Jennifer Herzog invited Jacob to stay on staff. Dr. Van Horn, Dr. Braitman, and Mr. Blair met with Jacob and a faculty advisor [who Jacob confirmed was Dr. Groninger in History] to discuss the circumstances and to assure him of his place on staff.” Dr. Braitman, vice president for academic affairs, told Jacob of her concerns that the incident represented “a violation of [his] academic integrity, and that’s one of the reasons we want to rectify it.”

Tetlow noted that he was “fired and reinstated” within the span of a week, suggesting that the College immediately recognized its error and reversed course.

Next Steps: Student Advocacy

Posts on YikYak, the anonymous campuswide social media app, were overwhelmingly supportive of Jacob and critical of the college’s decision not to rehire him as an RA. The anonymous users described him as caring, selfless and deeply committed to students. One post argued that not rehiring Jacob (JT)¹ over his study was “crazy” and accused the school of avoiding uncomfortable data. One user wrote that “[Tetlow] literally embodies who Jewell thinks they represent,” praising his service work, leadership and willingness to stand up for his beliefs. Another called him “the best RA I’ve ever had” and said he was being punished for “being a voice for the people.”One post claimed he had “done more things for Jewell than any RA has done.”

According to Jacob the YikYak reaction changed everything. “The reason that, like, I think I got this meeting … is because [of] the YikYak stuff,” he said in an interview.

The Aftermath: Academic Freedom At Jewell

This incident on its own has some disconcerting implications. However, this is not the only incident in recent Jewell memory in which the college has reacted negatively to a research organization investigating race relations on William Jewell’s campus. Back in 2020, a group of students at Jewell formed what they called the Slavery, Memory, and Justice Project (SMJP), which sought to explore the history of slavery in Clay County and how slavery shaped the early days of the college. This group, led by then-professor Dr. Christopher Wilkins, performed a deep scholarly exploration of the historical record, highlighting the lives of slaves in the community that surrounded Jewell’s campus and the pro-slavery views of Alexander Doniphan and other key figures in Jewell’s history. The SMJP received significant media and academic attention, with both the Hilltop Monitor and other KC-area news organizations discussing the SMJP’s efforts.

What made the SMJP’s work even more noteworthy is how little institutional support the SMJP had at the college. The SMJP’s official website, and many of the articles written about their work, highlight an extensive list of allegations that college leadership systematically restricted the ability of SMJP students to conduct research and discredited their work. The Pitch KC’s article on the subject portrays the relationship between the institution and the SMJP as tense, describing how the college refused to invite Dr. Wilkins or SMJP members to key meetings, refused to let the SMJP use the college archives, and used some of the SMJP’s findings without proper credit in their own historical accounts. The Pitch’s article further includes an email, sent by then-president Elizabeth MacLeod Walls, in which she asserted that “it is the sole responsibility of the Commission [a College-affiliated research team] to determine what is true.”

After the controversy surrounding the SMJP, Jewell created two key task forces to explore what happened between the SMJP and the college and to examine academic freedom policy at Jewell more broadly. The first was a special assignment for the Faculty Council, who were tasked with exploring the specific violations of academic freedom alleged by the SMJP. The second was the Student Academic Freedom Task Force to examine the state of academic freedom at Jewell and create a list of proposals for improving Jewell’s policies as regards student research. The student task force, which operated for around a month at the end of the 2022-2023 academic year, produced a list of proposals for amending Jewell’s policy library. 

While both of these groups generated their own conclusions on the question of academic freedom at Jewell and shared their conclusions with college administration, none of their conclusions were ever released publicly despite requests by the Hilltop Monitor and other student organizations. It is therefore unclear if any of their recommendations were actually adopted by the college or not. 

The SMJP’s case is troubling, but it is important to remember that the college’s leadership has changed substantially since 2022, and the administration’s response to the current incident has been more promising. In their comments to the Monitor, College administrators emphasized that policy changes would result from this incident. When asked what the administration learned from the incident, Dr. Van Horn told the Monitor that

In my seventeen years as a college President, I have learned that there are best practices that every college should follow. In my eight months as interim president at Jewell, I have noted that many of these best practices were not in place. I have directed these practices to be implemented at Jewell. First and foremost is the training of faculty and staff regarding behavior expectations for all Jewell employees. Thus, we are beginning a significant annual training program that all employees must complete. When an employee violates one of these expectations, we intervene, educate, and, if necessary, take corrective action. In short, the administration has learned that it has not done a good job of educating employees of these expectations and intervening as soon as possible when one has been violated. (emphasis added)

The administration’s willingness to reinstate Jacob as an RA is a good sign that college leadership is more concerned about academic freedom and research at Jewell than they have been previously. While Jewell still has work to do in order to rebuild students’ trust in their handling of academic freedom concerns, the administration’s immediate and unequivocal decision to reinstate Jacob is certainly a step in the right direction.

Conclusions

Thankfully, this incident has a happy ending. Jewell students and faculty, when we band together, have significant power to cause change, even in administrative decisions which we often think of as disconnected from the student body. In an interview, Jacob Tetlow recalled that one of the main reasons the VPAA cited for reinstating him was that it seemed like he was “wanted as an RA here outside of just that one individual’s decision.” He also noted conversations in his classes that led to student advocacy on his behalf, specifically highlighting support from peer Sara Polovina and professor Dr. Gary Armstrong. This in-person advocacy, as well as online advocacy via YikYak, influenced the decision to bring Jacob back as an RA next year. Jacob went on to say that 

I think, you know, it is that advocation from so many people around Jewell, so many people saying that’s uncomfortable, I don’t feel comfortable with that, that’s not right. This school has been pushing us for a long time, it seems like now, and we’re not gonna let them push past the fundamental values that built this school. […] I think that’s what enraged and embroiled a lot of people to actually do something.

We hope Jewell listens to student concerns and continues to take academic freedom seriously in the future. For example, the Student Life department itself is not well funded and is experiencing a lot of staff turnover. Jacob noted within the interview that “Student Life has really been trying, especially since Ryan got there, to kind of be the unit in the admin that melds … cliques, that provides an opportunity for people to meet together as a group and build a community outside their individual interests. And I think that Ryan is really, really trying hard for that. And I don’t know if she’s necessarily fully supported. And now that we’re losing a lot of RAs, she’s definitely … going to be less supported next year.”

While student advocacy still has a long way to go, we have hope that college administration will continue to act quickly and address student concerns, protecting academic freedom and providing a safe space for Jewell students to express their thoughts about their college experience.

“We’re not just going to be able to solve it overnight, if we’re going to be able to solve it at all without tearing something to the ground, like a building. For my part in the presentation and in the documentary, I really wanted to provide a framing where people could actively do stuff to make that thing better. And really, it boiled down to just being able to see, you know, it sounds corny, but like your classmates having fun and smiling around campus and it’s like, okay, well, I want to go and do that too.” – Jacob

1. YikYak does not permit names on its platform; instead, all references to names must use the individual’s initials. ︎

As I began to set up the new temporary Hilltop Monitor office in the Pryor Learning Commons room 207–the office space previously used by The Tucker Leadership Lab–I encountered several voice messages on the phone. These 15 messages left by 14 different callers were intended to reach the ears of Tucker administrative staff in hopes of scheduling programs with the Lab. 

The messages often included statements such as, “The last several years, we have had [a group] come over and work with you guys. It has been a great experience and we would like to continue that.” Many callers were reaching out to confirm details for programs, a few were scheduled for only a week or two after the message had been sent.

So, what was the Tucker Leadership Lab? Where did it go? Why did these requests go unanswered?

The Tucker Leadership Lab

The Tucker Leadership Lab was an experiential learning facility and challenge course that provided leadership growth opportunities to Jewell, Liberty and the Greater Kansas City area.

According to Eric Blair, William Jewell College’s Vice President of Marketing, Enrollment and Student Life, the Tucker Leadership Lab “is a program created from a project through a Pryor Leadership Fellow cohort in the early 2000’s. Its goal and purpose is to create experiential learning opportunities that includes students of William Jewell College.”

A former employee of the Lab described it as: “A safe place for groups [of all ages] middle school and up… to explore concepts such as team building, trust, communication, boundaries, respect, challenge by choice, self-esteem and more, using hands-on activities… The possibilities were endless and the learning opportunities abounded.” 

Al Leone, the former Director for the Tucker Leadership Lab says: “Tucker was an experiential Swiss army knife for team development. We provided a variety of problem-solving activities to clients to help them develop their individual leadership capacity as well as their ability to thrive in a team… We worked with everyone from fifth graders to corporate professionals because our philosophy was that everyone could benefit from learning to be better together. Tucker benefited William Jewell by being a positive, outward-facing arm of the organization… Tucker cultivated a positive connection [between Jewell and the] community.”

Where did Tucker go and why were the voice messages never answered?

Effective on June 30, 2023, Leone resigned from her positions at William Jewell College: student success navigator, director for People and Culture Development and director for the Tucker Leadership Lab. Leone’s responsibilities at Tucker included marketing, program design and delivery, budgeting, client payments, staffing, training, and payroll. Leone was also charged with maintaining the Tucker Leadership Lab grounds and courses as well as creating strategic plans for the Lab’s organizational growth. Upon Leone’s departure, these roles needed to be filled quickly to maintain Tucker operations and to deliver the upcoming programs that had been scheduled. 

Several experienced Tucker Facilitators–the Tucker Staff members who were primarily responsible for program delivery–volunteered to temporarily cover the necessary tasks immediately following Leone’s absence. Despite having asked a few of the current facilitators to fill the administrative gap, the Tucker Leadership Lab Director position remained vacant through the following month. In that month, Conner Hazelrigg, the Executive Director of Jewell Unlimited, offered Jewell Unlimited’s support to the President’s Cabinet. In conjunction with her advisors on the cabinet, William Jewell College President Dr. Elizabeth MacLeod Walls arranged for Jewell Unlimited and, ultimately, the program’s Executive Director to take on the administrative functions of the Tucker Leadership Lab. This administrative change was made effective on July 1, 2023.

Hazelrigg sent an email to Tucker Staff on July 3 to inform the team of the administrative change. In this email, Hazelrigg stated “[Jewell Unlimited’s] initial goal is to understand and support [The Tucker Leadership Lab’s] existing processes…Ultimately, the goal will be to take what we’ve learned and create a clear and transparent plan for moving forward.” Blair, who serves on the President’s Cabinet in addition to his other titles at Jewell explained: “Jewell Unlimited was asked to simply provide oversight and review/manage accounts payable. The Department of Business and Leadership was tasked with beginning to re-imagine the organizational structure and programming opportunities for students.”

The next update came to Tucker Staff on July 18 via an email from Hazelrigg. The update was that, effective immediately, the build-low structures, the Tucker Tower and the Odyssey ropes course could no longer be used for events. In an interview with The Hilltop Monitor, Hazelrigg explained that “The College’s insurance company requires that an FTE employed by the College is certified by ACCT.” The ACCT is the Association for Challenge Course Technology, an organization working to enhance the standardization and quality of challenge courses. While Leone held credentials from ACCT, no other William Jewell College employees were required to have one before her resignation and did not acquire one following her departure. The restrictions were stated to extend through the end of the month. Jewell Unlimited promptly began contracting scheduled clients to make necessary program adjustments. Lead Facilitators–Tucker staff typically tasked with client communication regarding programs–were instructed to make no contact with clients. Following the changes in program delivery, several scheduled programs lacked staffing as Facilitators were uncomfortable hosting programs so differently from their design. 

In the week of July 27, 2023, Alpine Towers, the comprehensive challenge course provider responsible for designing and building the Tucker Leadership Lab courses, performed an inspection on the Tucker courses. The College received the report from this inspection in the following week. 

When asked about the report, Hazelrigg stated, “The inspection identified several components of our local operating procedures that were out of compliance…[and] areas of the Tower itself and lower builts that failed the inspection.” However, in a statement sent on September 25 to Jewell staff, faculty and students, Dr. MacLeod Walls described there to be only one element of the course that “failed a safety standard.” The Hilltop Monitor was unable to view the inspection report. While the exact results of the inspection are not clear, Tucker’s 23-year-old course was certainly nearing the expected end of the typical 25-30 year expected life span of such challenge courses. 

Blair describes that even before the administrative transition occurred, the College had been discussing whether or not it was worth it to “reinvest in a physical structure,” considering “innovation and fiscal impact.”

On Aug. 11, 2023, Hazelrigg informed Tucker staff that all components of the Tucker Leadership Lab were to be immediately suspended. Jewell Unlimited promptly canceled all scheduled programs. When interviewed, Blair stated that “The staffing dynamic was a significant contributor to the pause in operations…[Jewell Unlimited] determined it would be in the best interest of clients and the College to pause operations rather than provide inconsistent service.”

In a meeting on the morning of Sept. 12, Jewell Administration communicated to Tucker Staff that the full suspension of Tucker activities was being extended through the calendar year and that all Tucker Facilitator positions were being removed. In a follow-up email to former Tucker Staff, Hazelrigg stated: “We are extending the suspension of all activities through the rest of the calendar year while we re-format the scope of the Lab’s offerings and re-incorporate the management into the Pryor leadership program. This will put it under the Department of Business at William Jewell College. Considering this, we are eliminating all part-time facilitator positions, and your services as a facilitator are no longer required.” Former Tucker staff were shortly thereafter asked to schedule a time to collect any personal belongings they may have been storing with Tucker supplies.

What is next for Tucker?

The good news for the Jewell community is that the Tucker Leadership Lab will be continuing to some degree at Jewell. Although the scope and offerings of this newly designed Tucker Leadership Lab have yet to be determined, Blair states that the Lab “will be re-incorporated into the Pryor Leadership Fellows program…under Dr. Kelli Schutte, chair of the Department of Business and Leadership.”

Some hints at what this modified Tucker might look like are found in the September 25 statement by Dr. MacLeod Walls: “The Tucker experience, which is focused on experiential leadership education, will continue through the Business and Leadership department and the Pryor Leadership Program through Outward Bound and many other elements of our leadership curricula at Jewell.”

Room 103 in Jewell Hall has since been labeled with a sign saying “Pryor Leadership Studies & Tucker Leadership Lab.” Blair explains that the faculty who lead both programs have offices in Jewell Hall, making the building an effective space to run these initiatives. Classes for Pryor Leadership students and programs for Tucker Leadership will still be held in the Pryor Leadership Development Center building.

Interviews

The following is a series of responses from interviews with several people that were conducted by The Hilltop Monitor. Interviews included are with Blair, Hazelrigg, Leone and two former Tucker Leadership Lab employees who will remain anonymous.

Please describe the reasons for suspending climbing and then, ultimately, all Tucker programs.

Hazelrigg: In short, the College is bound by standards for different practices as a way to decrease our exposure to risk. The College’s insurance company requires that an FTE employed by the College is certified by ACCT, in order to meet the standards. The pause on the lab’s activities was the only way at that time to eliminate the risk from a legal and insurance standpoint. You can read more about this on the ACCT website… It was confirmed that the built lows were considered structures that had to abide by the ACCT standard… The inspection identified several components of our local operating procedures that were out of compliance. Additionally, it identified areas of the Tower itself and lower builts that failed the inspection. The report was not all bad. The inspector spoke highly of many different aspects of the lab. The fact remains, though, there are aspects that need to be updated, changed, and attended to for the current lab to be brought up to appropriate standards.

Blair: The staffing dynamic was a significant contributor to the pause in operations. The exited director left a significant administrative gap, but she also contributed significantly to facilitating on the course. [Jewell Unlimited] determined it would be in the best interest of clients and the College to pause operations rather than provide inconsistent service. JU was asked to simply provide oversight and review/manage accounts payable. The Department of Business and Leadership was tasked with beginning to re-imagine the organizational structure and programming opportunities for students.

What insight can you provide regarding ACCT certifications? 

Leone: The ACCT does not have a specific requirement for staff certification in their standards. Staff should be trained by a qualified and competent individual. However, there is nothing stating that they need to hold a certification from ACCT to provide programming. I can’t speak to the certifications that other Directors held during their tenure at Tucker. However, while I was Tucker’s steward, staff were not generally certified through ACCT. I provided what is called an in-house certification based upon the trainings and documented skills checks that facilitators completed. I was their qualified, competent trainer and they were certified to work at Tucker.

What insight can you provide regarding thoughts on closing the Tucker Leadership Lab before your resignation?

Leone: President MacLeod Walls met with Kevin Shaffstall and Dr. Kelli Schutti in April of 2022 to inform them that Tucker would be closing effective at the end of the month. Many folks at Jewell were working diligently behind the scenes to prevent that for as long as possible… When the President first told Kevin to shut Tucker down, she said that the Lab was not profitable. What she meant was that the Lab did not make a 1.5 [profit over investment] return on budgeted investment each year. Please keep in mind that Kevin Shaffstall and I had never been given that expected revenue until 2022. In fiscal year ’22-’23 we did hit that mark. However, not all line items were placed appropriately in other accounts and so, on paper, it looks like we didn’t. I believe Tucker first moved under Jewell Unlimited because Dr. Schutte did not feel comfortable with it under the Business Department without the supervision of Kevin Shaffstall.

How did the experience of facilitating programs after the suspension of climbing and built-low equipment compare to previous events? 

Former Tucker Staff Member: Having our climbing and built-low equipment empowered the ideal working day. However, we still gave our groups a good experience. We all have had groups off-site or have moved an outdoor program indoors when the weather was poor (lightning, cold, etc.). When the built equipment was suspended, the other facilitators and I transitioned to our portable equipment and continued to provide quality experiences to the best of our abilities. Unfortunately, some groups did cancel because they had been to Tucker in previous years and knew that they wanted a climbing experience. This decision did challenge the other facilitators and myself because there was a lack of clarity on the reasoning behind it. We were left unable to fully explain the situation to our clients and that hurt morale, as we felt like we weren’t trusted to do a job that we had been trained to provide and had been providing for many years.

What do you think the Jewell Community should know about the ongoing situation regarding the Tucker Leadership Lab?

Hazelrigg: I think it is important to recognize that [the Tucker Leadership Lab] has been a valuable and beloved part of the Jewell, Northland and Greater Kansas City communities. The decision to pause the lab was not cavalier, not without cause, and certainly not easy. In fact, it was quite hard. Something can be fantastic and memorable, but that doesn’t entitle it to exist forever. Higher education and not-for-profits are not insulated from the economic hardships that for-profit businesses have to overcome. Increased prices of goods, gas, labor, insurance, etc. all make it harder for a business to survive. The simplest way I can put it is that TTLL is a product brand of WJC. It is a valued brand that isn’t going away. In order for that brand, and the good work it represents, to be sustainable, the College is carefully considering what it will look like going forward. The continued pause allows for that consideration to be thoughtful and complete, in hope of a future plan that benefits the College and TTLL alike.

Leone: I hope they know that this wasn’t our choice. Further, I hope they know that everything that my staff did at the Leadership Lab was always in the context of highest safety and highest quality. The staff at Tucker care deeply about their work. Even on the toughest days in extreme weather or with a rough team, they still maintained a positive attitude.  I could not have asked for a more incredible group of people to work with every day and they fought hard to seek understanding and provide clarity to Jewell Unlimited on our scope of work.

It would be unfair to ignore the fact that the Tucker Lab was coming due for some big repairs. Everything has a life cycle and a typical challenge course lasts 25-30 years. However, the money for repairs existed in our deferred maintenance account and we continued to bring in surpluses that were supposed to go to this fund. I think what we are looking at isn’t a situation of ‘does the money exist’ but something like, is Tucker a priority for the institution? Based upon the behavior (treatment of myself and the team, representation of the program to community stakeholders, investment of time and resources) of Jewell Unlimited and the President, I don’t think it is. 

Former Tucker Staff member: One of the first things I talk to my groups about is how important integrity and honesty is when working with groups of people.  I feel that has been lacking with this situation.

Former Tucker Staff member: I hope for the Jewell Community to be empowered to make their own decisions, acknowledge emotions as they arise, and seek to be well informed. Jewell Unlimited may have much to offer and seems to be a decent program separate from Tucker Leadership Lab. However, the fact [that] WJC and Jewell Unlimited terminated existing Tucker Facilitators while using the Tucker name to gain clientele, and [then] communicating with the community that Tucker will re-open, feels disrespectful. Not a single facilitator terminated…was given any impression we would be provided the opportunity to be re-hired when Jewell attempts to re-open Tucker in 2024. 

Do you have any further comments, concerns or anything you would like to share? 

Former Tucker Staff member:  I would like to share a few examples of how I have seen time at Tucker impact our participants. These are just a handful and each facilitator has their own stories to share about the power of our work. In past groups: I have had a student that was taken from his home for abuse, and had not spoken the entire time he had been at his school, and he talked that day with his group, telling them it was the best day of his life.  I had an adult that was very sarcastic most of the day and finally asked me if he could change something he had said earlier to his team.  I told him yes, and he shared he had a critically ill child and didn’t know if he would live.  His whole team told him what they would do, so he could have all the time he needed to be with his son. I had a girls’ sports team that would not talk to each other when they started, and at the end of the day, they were hugging and crying and said they learned to talk any issues out, and they wouldn’t ever let it be an issue for them again.  This season [in] 2023, I had a girl that wouldn’t join the group in the beginning of the day, and finally started to participate. She finally shared with me that she was going through a lot of trauma. I emailed the contact, and they were going to get her in touch with her counselor.  I also had a teacher that said her budget had been cut and they hadn’t been able to come the previous year. She said that the students were so much better when they were able to come to Tucker, that she was going to use her own money if they couldn’t come up with the finances to come. This is the difference that we make to participants and I wish it was more valued by Jewell. 

Former Tucker Staff member: It is a shame Jewell Unlimited took over management only to terminate the existing Tucker Team. Originally I was led to believe Facilitators would be included in the change process, and that communication would be transparent, which was not the case. WJC students and Tucker clients deserve better. I saw myself working with Tucker for years to come. Now that opportunity is gone. 

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.