On Dec. 5, 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 to brief students on faculty council’s executive summary of the report on claims made by students and faculty of the Slavery, Memory Justice Project (SMJP) that the William Jewell College administration had undermined students’ and faculty’s academic freedom.  Armstrong also provided a copy of faculty council’s recommendations for strengthening academic freedom at William Jewell College, as stated in the executive summary of its report.

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 claimed that their ability to present their scholarship to the Jewell community was undermined by interference from the administration. The SMJP also claimed that the College showed preferential treatment in terms of access to archival materials to its own investigative council: the Racial Reconciliation Commission (RRC); the RRC had unlimited access to materials that the SMJP had limited access to. The RRC was established in April 2021 by Elizabeth MacLeod Walls, president of the College. Its purpose is to “[find] and [express] both an historical and moral truth about the racial history of William Jewell College spanning the years of our founding until today.”

After providing a copy of the recommendations, Armstrong addressed questions from members of Student Senate and The Hilltop Monitor pertaining to the recommendations. Armstrong also discussed some of the historical background that led to the resolution to investigate claims of academic freedom violations. 

Secondly, Amstrong also stated that, apart from faculty council’s recommendations, students would not receive any other aspects of faculty council’s executive summary on the report of academic freedom. Armstrong’s explanation for this decision centered on confidentiality, personnel privacy, and the importance of second chances for parties interviewed in the investigative process.

Thirdly, Armstrong responded to claims made in a letter written by Christopher Wilkins, associate professor of history and faculty advisor for the SMJP, concerning the lack of findings on violations of student academic freedom within the report. Afterwards, McBroom explained why faculty council chose to make findings on particular student issues, and not others.

The meeting will be discussed through these three sections. Readers may follow along on the full transcript of the meeting, which can be found here. The transcript, like the article, is divided into sections for ease of access.

The members of the Student Senate meeting generally have a good understanding of the history of the controversy. As a result, the questions asked by students present and Armstrong’s and McBroom’s responses assume a certain degree of knowledge about the matter at hand. Since it is not the case that these facts have been presented in a comprehensive manner to the student body, the article will first give a history of the events leading up to the resolution prompting faculty council’s investigation and the actors involved. Clarification of necessary historical background will take place in the first section of this article; the next three sections will deal with the proceeding of the meeting as previously articulated. In total, this article will have four sections.

I. The events leading up to faculty council’s resolution

On Apr. 4, 2022, Wilkins presented a lecture to Jewell faculty in which he expressed reservations about the RRC’s report and discussed violations of the SMJP’s academic freedom. This report – which was released in January of 2022 – provided the RRC’s “initial research regarding the slaveholding of the College’s founders and the influence of those founders on the early decades of the College.” The report was compiled by the RRC’s lead researcher, Andrew Pratt, dean emeritus of the chapel, using resources from the William Jewell College Archives and Partee Center, the Missouri State Archives, and research conducted by other members of the RRC and research done by Hayley Michael for the SMJP. Michael – now a Jewell history and political science alumna –  is a member of the SMJP and a former member of the RRC between Apr. and Feb. of 2022. Michael resigned from the RRC because of her reservations regarding the findings of the RRC’s report.

In his lecture, Wilkins praised the work of SMJP students, who had gathered more than 5,000 historical sources illuminating slavery’s influence on Jewell’s history. Wilkins also criticized the approach that the RRC had taken in studying connections between slavery and Jewell’s history, including its failure to to focus on the lived experience of enslaved people and the administration’s lack of engagement with SMJP students’ work.

On Apr. 22, 2022, in another lecture, Wilkins elaborated on the claims he made to faculty on Apr. 4. Wilkins claimed the following:

First, the administration inaccurately implied that the research done by Jewell students, alumni, and Wilkins on the College’s pro-slavery past was done in collaboration with the RRC and administration. In the College’s initial public relations statement regarding the RRC, Wilkins was listed as a special advisor to the group and his name was used without permission in the College’s announcement video for the RRC. In fact, Wilkins had declined to be a part of the RRC. 

Second, Wilkins elaborated on his earlier point on Apr. 4 concerning the lack of adequate engagement with student voices and student research in the RRC’s report. The RRC’s report makes no mention of research completed by SMJP students as members of the SMJP. The RRC report cites research compiled by Michael, but does not indicate that this research was done as part of the SMJP project, long before the RRC’s report was compiled. Furthermore, the RRC’s report did not cite research completed by the student archivist during the summer of 2021 on census data hosted on the Missouri State Archives website.

Though Wilkins did not directly mention this in his lecture at the Colloquium, he invited the audience to ask SMJP student researchers about their experiences serving on the RRC. Specifically, he indicated that the way in which the RRC repeatedly undermined student voices was enumerated in Michael’s letter of resignation from the RRC. The content of this letter would later serve as some of the basis for Wilkins’ claims that culminated in the resolution petitioning faculty council to investigate concerns about academic freedom violations. Because this was discussed in the Student Senate meeting, a fuller account of this letter will be given in the relevant section of this article. 

Third, Wilkins drew attention to an e-mail sent by Elizabeth MacLeod Walls, president of the College, on Aug. 30, 2021; Wilkins discussed this e-mail on Apr. 22 of 2022 during the Duke Undergraduate Colloquium. This e-mail was sent to all faculty and staff – but not students – after the Kansas City Star published an article focusing on the SMJP students’ research. The e-mail stated that “until we are clear on what is true regarding Jewell’s founding, we cannot make decisions on how we should live, or move forward,  as a twenty-first century institution of higher learning. Perhaps more importantly, it is the sole responsibility of the [Racial Reconciliation] Commission to determine what is true [about the college’s founding]…”

The e-mail made no mention of the SMJP or of their contributions to researching the history of the College and its ties to slavery. Wilkins claimed that MacLeod Walls’ e-mail, in asserting that the RRC had the sole responsibility to determine what is true about the founding of the College, amounted to the claim that “only the college administration has the authority to say what is true about its history” – not the students, nor any alumni or faculty associated with the SMJP. 

Fourthly, Wilkins claimed that repeated efforts, dating back to Sept. of 2020, to make contact with the administration and the lead researcher of the RRC in order “to try to get them to empower the students and listen to the students and me when we explain what national best practices would require to study Jewell’s pro-slavery past well” amounted to nothing.

For example, SMJP students suggested dedicating a room in Jewell Hall to the history of the College and its ties to slavery – this idea was rejected by the College on the basis that it did not constitute an “organic” move towards change. Further, Wilkins’ petition to have a faculty forum for the purposes of educating faculty on the history of slavery at the College was denied on the grounds that this move would be “discourteous to the administration.” It was Pharamond Guice, then chair of the staff council, who invited Wilkins to speak to staff on these issues.

Finally, Wilkins also claimed that students were barred from access to key resources found in the William Jewell College Archives at a time when Pratt had 24/7 access to the archives, given that he had a key to the archives. In other words, the College showed preferential treatment to its own investigative commission in terms of access to key archival resources. 

In May of 2022, on the basis of claims made by Wilkins and SMJP students, a resolution was unanimously approved by the Jewell faculty tasking faculty council to ‘investigate and report on claims that academic freedom has been threatened or undermined at Jewell.’ That investigation began in June and concluded last month. Its findings, to the extent that students have been able to learn about them, were the subject of the Student Senate meeting, and will be brought up in the relevant section.

II. The executive summary of  faculty council’s report on the question of academic freedom: A brief history and recommendations 

With these historical preliminaries aside, the article will discuss the Student Senate meeting. Readers following along on the transcript should note that this section corresponds to section 1 of the transcript.

Armstrong stated that “faculty voted on a resolution which [he] had offered… to ask faculty council to investigate the claims about whether academic freedom had been threatened or undermined.”

Once the resolution had been adopted, faculty council began a “long investigative process” which McBroom took part in. McBroom, along with other faculty, was “elected by the faculty and entrusted by the faculty” to undertake this investigative process.

After collecting evidence by interviewing relevant individuals, asking questions of the College archives and reviewing the Faculty Handbook and the Student Handbook, faculty council compiled their findings in a report. The full report was issued to administrative Cabinet members, faculty council, the Board of Trustees, the associate dean of the core curriculum and academic department chairs. An executive summary of this report was issued to all faculty. However, no faculty members other than department chairs will be allowed to see the full report. 

According to Armstrong, “faculty council had three principal findings. First, while academic freedom had not been threatened… it had been undermined. Secondly, although there have been claims that professor Wilkins and [SMJP] students had been denied fair access to the college archives, [faculty council] found those claims were not persuasive. They didn’t rise to the level of being an academic freedom violation.” Thirdly, “[faculty council] also found that although there had been claims that students had been denied their right to present their findings or research – to have a voice – they found that those were not persuasive either.” 

Armstrong presented students with faculty council’s 25 recommendations. The document containing these recommendations can be accessed here. The Hilltop Monitor has also transcribed the recommendations. They are as follows:

Policy Changes 

1. Academic Freedom Policy
   • Examine handbook language to ensure consistency and adequate protection of academic freedom. 
   • Specifically address academic freedom issues around intramural speech and protect the right to criticize college policy and administrative decisions. 
   • Require annual training for the Board of Trustees (BOT), Administration and Faculty on Academic Freedom.
   • Review the student academic freedom policy.
   • Appoint an academic freedom policy task force to review these recommendations. 
2. Archive Policy 
   • The policy on access and storage of old trustee minutes should be written.
   • Commit to preserving the archives, following best practices, improving the environment/storage, and providing the resources to do so. 
   • Policy on archive access should be codified. 
   • Clarify role of retirees, key return, building access, and oversight of and input on policy. 
3. Write a policy for the Faculty Handbook or Policy Library about media inquiries and faculty.

Racial Reconciliation Commission 

1. Continue the scholarly work of uncovering the history of the College’s earliest decades, but with a renewed energy of cooperation among all competing narratives. 
2. Acknowledge that the previous histories left out the truth. 
3. Tell the history unimpeded by spinning a more “acceptable” story.
4. Inform the College community of the RRC’s mandate, goals, and alignment with strategic plan. 
5. Share recommendations, engage the community, and share next steps. 
6. Adopt a transparent process by providing regular communication on outcomes and shortening the timeline on action items. 
7. Remove the announcement video and webpage information that implies Dr. Wilkins is a member of RRC.

Shared Governance 

1. Issue a statement of support from Administration and BOT defending faculty rights to full academic freedom and commitment to shared governance. 
2. Specify that the VPAA leads in the defense of academic freedom for the faculty. 
3. Appoint two faculty to the full BOT for a two-year term and a maximum of two consecutive terms for consistent faculty representation concurrent with the Faculty Council subcommittee appointments. 
4. Improve consistent membership of Faculty Council members on subcommittees. 
5. Appoint a faculty cabinet from the chairs of the big four committee (or their designee) to provide an avenue to improve communication, trust, and shared governance. 
6. The VPAA should vet any changes to the Faculty Handbook after first consulting with Faculty Council.
7. Faculty Council should conduct a regular evaluation of the President and VPAA, reporting the results to the faculty. 

Culture and Communication

1. Foster a culture of trust and openness. 
2. Acknowledge the culture of fear and take steps to acknowledge and adopt meaningful change to eliminate or mitigate fear. 
3. Seek to listen to diverse viewpoints and find compromise instead of attempting to control. 
4. Set collaboration as a priority at all levels, and include all relevant audiences. 
5. When intentions or goals are not clear, gather all pertinent members face-to-face to discuss goals, priorities, and intentions to avoid miscommunication. 
6. Allow multiple voices into formal communication efforts to incorporate diverse perspectives and check tone and alignment. 
7. Check communication efforts to make sure they are forward-looking and not simply reactionary. 
8. Develop a culture taskforce (made up of administration, faculty, and staff) to assess current cultural norms and find effective ways forward to mitigate some of the cultural characteristics and miscommunication that led to this situation.
   

Armstrong stated that the administration is committed to enacting faculty council’s recommendations. This commitment was expressed in a joint e-mail from MacLeod Walls and Armstrong to the faculty on Nov. 19, the day after faculty council’s executive summary of the report was released to all faculty. 

Armstrong noted that the timeline in terms of the adoption of these recommendations is difficult to pin down. Some of the recommendations, such as the recommendation to review the Faculty Handbook, require the approval of the Board of Trustees. Further, proposing major changes to the Student Handbook with respect to academic freedom requires that the Board be informed such that they can make comments and questions.

III: On the confidentiality of the executive summary of faculty council’s report

Armstrong then gave an account of why the executive summary of faculty council’s report is confidential. Interested readers will want to refer to section two of the transcript. 

Armstrong stated that it is the College’s policy to “maintain confidentiality about investigative processes which can involve alleged misconduct.” To illustrate this, Armstrong gave three examples. 

1. “Professor McBroom and I know faculty that have been fired because they have sex with students. We don’t know that officially because unless you’re directly involved with the case, we never say that publicly. That’s in part to guard the rightful privacy of the student who is involved, but that is also – in cases where everyone is confident that there is not serial abuse – you give the faculty a chance to get another job. So it’s in part about privacy, second chances.”

2. “I served on the Greek judicial council. Now, the Greek judicial council does not deal with individual Greeks; it deals with sanctions on Greek organizations as a whole. Some of them have gotten into enormous trouble and faced serious sanctions imposed by a group who are majority students with some faculty – and I bet you don’t know. Well, why don’t we tell you? It’s in part we’re saying to those organizations, get your act together. And we’re going to give you a chance to recruit good new members to help you keep your act together rather than publicly – but if you don’t get your act together, then that can come out.”

3. “I imagine this year we’re going to have 35 academic honor code violations. I will always think the College should – and we always do – we report to faculty and I hope the Hilltop Monitor will always run an article on the numbers: how many cases, how many were convicted, how many were acquitted, describe the sanctions. But we can’t tell you the individuals and that’s in part because, we’ve always said that part of our educational process –  even in that process – is educational and to give the person another chance. So that’s elements of rightful confidentiality in my view.”

Students were confused about the examples presented. While clearly there was some similarity in terms of confidentiality for the sake of maintaining personnel or student privacy in both the academic freedom investigation and in the three examples, the nature of these examples seemed different than the investigation undertaken by faculty council. As The Hilltop Monitor’s reporter noted, the examples dealt with criminal investigations or investigations into misconduct, whereas the issue at hand was a “determination on student rights to academic freedom.” The Hilltop Monitor reporter argued that it was important for students to see the “deliberation that faculty council underwent in order to have an understanding of how… admin and… faculty understand students’ rights.”

In response, Armstrong emphasized that confidentiality was maintained because of personnel privacy. As Armstrong stated that behind some of the evidence “are actual college personnel and officers. And… faculty council made the decision… that the really important thing here is to figure out what happened and what to do about it… not to adjudicate personal accountability and responsibility.” Therefore, “[the College] cannot give an account of the structure of the deliberation beyond what’s in the executive summary… [In the report, faculty council] give a definition of what they mean by threaten and undermine; they gave a list of the people that they interviewed; and some evidence that they looked at… Beyond that, that is cloaked behind confidentiality.”

The Hilltop Monitor’s reporter asked whether the principles that faculty council used in their deliberation about academic freedom could be released. The Hilltop Monitor’s reporter was specifically interested in getting the definition of undermine or threaten as used in the report.

Armstrong responded that “[the student body] will not be given the exact principles [used by faculty council].”

Following up on this line of questioning, Ethan Naber, Student Senate’s commissioner for student involvement, asked why “no steps [like redacting names of personnel where appropriate] can be taken to make information available to students.” 

Armstrong responded that he had already given three examples as to why this would not suffice to safeguard confidentiality. However, he stated that he was “very happy to ask the president” for permission to summarize the arguments he had presented thus far. 

IV. Dr. Wilkins’ allegations in his letter to faculty and administration

Benjamin Wardlow, president of Student Senate, asked Armstrong and McBroom to respond to allegations discussed in a letter Wilkins sent to faculty and administration on Dec. 4, following the release of the executive summary. The Hilltop Monitor obtained a copy of Wilkins’ letter. Interested readers will want to refer to section three and four of the transcript.

The central claim made by Wilkins was that faculty council’s findings – as reported in the executive summary – presented “a flawed, incomplete narrative that effaces students’ central role” in the ongoing controversy concerning academic freedom. Specifically, faculty council failed to make findings on two of three claims that Wilkins made with respect to student academic freedom, and Wilkins argued that its finding on his third claim was flawed.

What were Wilkins’ three claims?

1. The administration threatened or undermined student academic freedom by “hindering students’ access to historical sources and giving College officials preferential access to those sources.”

2. The administration threatened or undermined student academic freedom “by attempting to exert control over the dissemination of students’ research into the College’s relation to slavery.”

3. The administration threatened or undermined student academic freedom by “hindering their ability to have their scholarship judged fairly by the College community.”

With respect to the first claim, Armstrong stated that faculty council’s report “concluded that professor Wilkins did have access to the archives but at a different timeline as the result of what was going on inside the archives – it was not a process of deliberate, intentional denial of archive access.”

Furthermore, Armstrong drew a distinction between violations of academic freedom and violations of the spirit of free inquiry. Armstrong argued that barring someone “access to archival materials is not itself an academic freedom issue.” To explain why, Armstrong gave three examples:

1. “If I want the minutes of crucial Chinese leadership meetings over what to do at Shanghai, and they refuse to give it to me, my academic freedom has not been violated.”

2. “If I want what I think are super secret memos in the Vatican about the role of the Pope in World War II, and I want those memos and the Vatican says no, my academic freedom has not been violated.”

3. “If I believe there are really important memos in the George Bush library about torture and I know where they are and they won’t give them, my academic freedom has not been violated.”

Students were confused about the applicability of these examples to the current matter. The Hilltop Monitor reporter noted that the issue at hand was one wherein a faculty member had requested access to archival resources. It was unclear just how petitioning a foreign government could be similar to this case, particularly when the policy of the College archives has generally been that “so long as it’s a member of the Jewell community [petitioning for access to archival resources], [archives staff] have to give reasons for not giving access.” And although the College granted Wilkins and the SMJP students access to archival resources, the SMJP claimed that the RRC’s lead researcher was given “preferential treatment” to archives resources. Specifically, in June 2021, the SMJP had first requested information about Board of Trustee minutes, but never received information from the archives staff regarding them, and only learned of their existence after the publication of the RRC’s slavery report in Jan. of 2022.

In response, Armstrong emphasized that the point of his examples “is that refusing to grant access to information is not itself a violation of academic freedom.” Further, with respect to the claim about preferential treatment of the RRC’s lead researcher, Armstrong stated that “he had different access at a different time, but Professor Wilkins was given the same access.” Armstrong also added that “the second thing that’s important… is that the early Board of Trustees minutes were not in the archives. They were in the executive office.”

A brief discussion on the resources in contention is merited. Apart from a general claim made by SMJP students that they were barred access to the archives for a variety of reasons such as the disorganization of the archives itself and the presence of black mold, there is also a specific claim made with respect to certain key archives resources. These are the mid 19th century minutes of the Board of Trustees and certain early development financial papers. The minutes of the Board of Trustees are not stored in the archives; these are stored in the president’s office. The early development papers are stored in the archives. 

The claims made by Wilkins with respect to the early development papers and the Board of Trustee minutes are as follows:

1. During the summer of 2021, Wilkins petitioned the College archives for access to their resources in order to conduct research concerning the history of the College and its ties to slavery. This petition made it known to archives staff that Wilkins was looking for documents which might aid his research. Given the disorganization of the archives at the time, effective research required that archives staff stay on the lookout for resources that might help the patron, as the patron themself could not reference a comprehensive inventory, nor wander archives circulation, as the archives is closed circulation. That archives staff did not inform Wilkins or the SMJP students about the RRC’s lead researcher finding the Board of Trustee minutes in the President’s Office, then, constitutes preferential treatment of the RRC in terms of access to resources, where access to these resources is crucial for academic freedom insofar as this involves pursuing controversial issues freely. Wilkins and the SMJP students found out about the existence of the Board of Trustee minutes only when the RRC’s report was published. Previously, the Board of Trustee minutes in question had been lost and were found in the President’s Office.

2. In April 2022, when Wilkins requested to see the mid 19th century Board of Trustee minutes kept for safekeeping in the Office of the President, adding that he wished to include SMJP students in these research appointments, he received a response from the administration that, in order to see these minutes, he and his students would have to petition the Board of Trustees directly. Later, this was revised to say that President MacLeod Walls, who is “ultimately responsible” for the minutes, could approve access to the minutes—which she did. In his open letter to faculty, Wilkins pointed out that he had first asked to see the trustee minutes in June 2021, and that between that time and January 2022, when the existence of those sources became public knowledge, only the RRC’s lead researcher had been able to conduct research in the sources.

3. Furthermore, when Wilkins and the SMJP students were granted access to these resources, they were informed that no scans or photographs could be taken of these minutes, nor of the early development financial papers stored in the archives, as both of these contain proprietary and confidential information. Wilkins and his students were invited to take handwritten or typed notes on the documents. However, this again showed that the College had given preferential treatment to the RRC’s lead researcher – Pratt had received scans of almost all the early development papers stored in the archives. These scans were made by the student archivist during the summer of 2021.

4. By unduly obstructing the SMJP’s access to resources, the College’s actions undermined the epistemic authority of the SMJP. While the lead researcher of the RRC had reproductions which he could easily reproduce, the SMJP researchers had to rely on handwritten or typed notes which are subject to mistakes and to further questioning by members of the public. These obstacles in terms of access made it so that the SMJP was in a worse position in terms of doing sustained academic research into the history of the College – these concerns seemed to Wilkins to fall right under the purview of academic freedom violations.

In response, Armstrong reasserted that SMJP students were granted access to resources, just on a different timeline. He also restated his strong belief that a denial of access is not an academic freedom violation.

Armstrong then addressed Wilkins’ second claim by drawing a distinction between controlling and influencing. Armstrong argues that Wilkins’ claims that the administration went astray insofar as they attempted to influence the students, and that this struck him as “different than… control.” “If the president says, ‘We are worried about the timing of… [the] dissemination of findings and building coalitions and support for the unity of change.’ She has just said, ‘We are worried.’ She did not say, ‘You may not do that.’ So she’s trying to influence, but that’s not the same thing as control.”

These comments were in reference to claims that, upon hearing that The Hilltop Monitor planned to release several articles about the SMJP and their research, the administration contacted The Hilltop Monitor to ask that the publication of these articles be delayed. Despite the administration’s attempt to influence the publication time, The Hilltop Monitor published their articles in April and May (the relevant articles can be accessed here, starting with an article published in Apr. 16, 2021). 

Finally, Armstrong addressed Wilkins’ third claim. Armstrong does not believe that the actions of the administration undermined students’ freedom to have their scholarship judged fairly by the College community. For the same reasons he discussed earlier in the meeting: namely, students were able to present their research at various forums and on The Hilltop Monitor. 

However, Wilkins’ claims say a bit more. Wilkins argues that communication on the part of the administration – both to specific students and to the Jewell community – undermined Jewell’s standing as a marketplace of ideas, where competing truths can be discussed and tested. This is because the communication on the part of administration, which has a great degree of authority and influence when it comes to addressing both the Jewell community and the broader Kansas City community, placed the RRC at the center of the investigative enterprise while ignoring or minimizing the SMJP’s ongoing contributions to research into the history of the College. 

There are at least three instances that may support such a claim:

1. The first is one that has already been mentioned; namely, MacLeod Walls’ email in August of 2021 that stated that the RRC had the ‘sole responsibility’ to determine what is true in terms of the history of the College.

2. The second has to do with statements made by the administration with respect to Michael’s letter of resignation from the RRC. As a reminder, Michael was a history and political science major who was a founding member of the SMJP in August 2020; she is now a Jewell alumna. Michael agreed to be a member of the RRC in Apr. of 2021. In Feb. of 2022, she resigned from the RRC for a variety of reasons. One of these is that she did not feel that her concerns as a student researcher were adequately heard during the RRC’s meetings. 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. When Michael disputed this portrayal of Jewell’s actions using SMJP member Christian Santiago’s research on Jewell, she was told: “No, you’re wrong.”

Michael presented the reasons for her resignation to Rodney Smith, vice president for access and engagement and commission chair. In a letter to the SMJP sent in July 2022, Michael states that in a May 2022 faculty forum, MacLeod Walls implied that “that Dr. Wilkins manipulated me into resigning because he was angry the administration refused his demands. She portrayed me as a weak-willed individual in front of 40+ faculty and the entire college cabinet, completely ignoring that I had resigned for principled moral and intellectual reasons.”

3. Michael claimed that comments by Smith also misrepresented her to the Jewell community.

Armstrong addressed each of these claims. In terms of the first, Armstrong stated that “what [MacLeod Walls] says in that e-mail is that the RRC will have the sole authority to decide what is true and what we are going to do about it.The faculty all heard the first part of the e-mail.” But what MacLeod Walls really meant was “the ‘and’ in the second part.” Further, Armstrong thinks that MacLeod Walls likely regrets that e-mail, given that there is a general understanding on the part of the faculty that “the institutional office of the College does not have a right to decide what is true. [However,] it does have the right to figure out what [the community is] going to do about it.”

Particularly with respect to the third claim, Armstrong stated that “Dr. Smith… would say that… those statements were inartful… [that he] did not mean to indicate the College or the RRC is going to control who receives what of the SMJP’s students’ research.” Armstrong also added that Smith had already clarified his statements in several meetings. 

The Hilltop Monitor reporter asked in what meetings, and to whom, Smith had clarified that his statements were ‘inartful.’ The Hilltop Monitor reporter argued that the issue is that no students had been present in these meetings, which did not ameliorate the “institutional break-down of trust between the admin and the students.”

Armstrong emphasized that The Hilltop Monitor should interview Smith and MacLeod Walls on their statements made with respect to Michael and with respect to the RRC being solely responsible for inquiry into the truth of the history of the College. Armstrong argued that: “It’s time for some interviews, instead of writing more editorials.” Armstrong’s comments are in reference to an editorial arguing that the College should uphold its commitments to student academic freedom, as articulated in the Student Handbook, and disseminate an appropriately redacted version of the executive summary of faculty council’s report.

Wardlow then turned to McBroom. Specifically, Wardlow wanted to understand why faculty council reached a finding on Wilkins’ third claim, and not his first and second claim. In terms of the third claim: faculty council had found that students’ academic freedom was not threatened or undermined insofar as students were able to present at Colloquium and publish articles on the Hilltop Monitor.

McBroom stated that faculty council’s investigative scope was limited to concerns about faculty academic freedom, given its charter. Faculty council did make a finding on Wilkins’ third claim because it pertained to concerns of faculty academic freedom. Faculty council’s claims were also set in relation to Wilkins claims. This also accounts for why faculty council made findings with respect to certain issues, and not others.

At the conclusion of the meeting, Matthew Parker, Student Senate’s commissioner for students’ charter of rights and responsibilities, asked whether there “is…some council or commission whose job it is to address matters of student academic freedom, specifically as regards students rather than as regards faculty.”

McBroom recommended that students “read the student handbook first” to see what “processes or procedures” may be in place. McBroom also recommended that students work with Ernie Stufflebean, dean of students, to “move [things] forward.”  

Armstrong added that he thought it was “totally reasonable for Student Senate to send a letter to the administration” asking for assurances that credible allegations concerning student academic freedom violation would be addressed.  After the meeting with Armstrong and McBroom ended, the cabinet members of Student Senate – along with Stufflebean – discussed gathering evidence from students and alumni affiliated with the SMJP in order to continue the discussion on academic freedom. The Hilltop Monitor will continue to report on the story as it develops, and relevant members of administration will be contacted to give them an opportunity to respond to claims that surfaced in this meeting. 

This semester has been unique for college students nationwide. As many schools remained online through the fall semester due to COVID-19,  William Jewell College came back for in-person classes. As we near the end of the fall semester, students, staff and faculty alike have begun to wonder what the next semester will look like.

The main questions heard around campus include: What will we be doing for classes next semester? How will policies change? What will quarantine look like for students who may be positive or exposed to someone who is?

To get some sense of what students can expect, The Hilltop Monitor reached out to President Elizabeth MacLeod Walls to get the administrative perspective.

MacLeod Walls’ responses were optimistic, which may bring a sense of relief to many.

“Faculty and staff began planning our response to the pandemic in February 2020. Careful planning and risk mitigation through common sense protocols has led to far fewer cases at Jewell than at our peer institutions,” MacLeod Walls said. 

According to MacLeod Walls, there has been extensive planning for the next semester as well. MacLeod Walls did not detail the specifics of these plans.

MacLeod Walls discussed how Jewell’s cases compare to other Missouri colleges.

“If you look at the dashboards of other schools – both public and private – throughout the Region, you’ll see that by comparison, our cumulative number of cases is low,” said MacLeod Walls.

Jewell has had 26 positive cases and a “[s]mall cluster of positive cases on the football team and in the KA house,” according to weekly Operation Safe Campus reports from Joe Garcia, vice president of finance and operations, as of Nov. 10.

While the exact number of cases have not been released, Jewell’s total number of COVID-19 cases has remained relatively low since Aug. 28. Compared to Clay County, which is currently at 6,203 total cases, the College is doing extremely well. 

In terms of possible improvements and modifications, MacLeod Walls explained potential changes in Jewell quarantine housing. 

“We have run two tabletop scenarios with faculty and staff since the pandemic started in an effort to identify gaps. Our most recent tabletop helped us to see that we needed a back-up facility for quarantining if Browning ever hit capacity,” MacLeod Walls said. “We contracted with Home2Suites to ensure that we had safe and comfortable housing for our quarantining students. With the recent post-Halloween uptick in cases, we have increased residency in Browning, but we feel confident that we could exercise our alternative at Home2Suites if needed.”

Home2Suites is a Hilton extended-stay hotel, with the closest location only about eight minutes away from Jewell’s campus. The backup quarantine location provides additional comfort for students who may be concerned about returning home to quarantine and endangering loved ones.

Finally, MacLeod Walls emphasized her belief that the College has been able to keep politics and the pandemic separate.

“The students have been vigilant about wearing masks throughout campus, which is the best thing they can do to mitigate spread. My strong and ongoing encouragement to students is that they avoid gatherings off-campus.,” said MacLeod Walls. “I am so proud of our campus, but not at all surprised, that we upheld civility, engaged in meaningful dialogue, and maintained our COVID-19 protocols throughout the election. Well done, Jewell!”

Overall, MacLeod Walls emphasized the College’s efforts to keep students safe and active on campus.

While the uplifting response from the administration is encouraging, the perspective of students is also important.

Kennedy Marks, first-year theater major, differed from MacLeod Walls in her opinion of how seriously her peers are taking the pandemic.

“I don’t feel like my peers [are taking] the pandemic very seriously. There were many parties that took place and many students would crowd within hallways without wearing masks,” Marks said.

Isabel Warden, sophomore public relations and theater major, echoed Marks’ comments.

“It depends on who you ask… There are definitely some who have not [taken COVID-19 seriously],” Warden said.

Both the students agreed that they felt the campus was doing decently, but are wary of the community letting their guard down.

“Just because we are a smaller, more isolated campus, does not mean that we are impenetrable to COVID-19,” Warden said.

With cases spiking in the Clay County and Kansas City area, the campus is especially vulnerable to an outbreak.

When asked if they thought the campus could improve at all, both students pointed to the College’s communication as their primary concern.

Both Warden and Marks felt that students are not kept in the loop as well as they should have been. They expressed confusion at the campus being at threat level B for the majority of the semester so far. Students were under the impression that the campus would more readily go to threat level C when students and employees tested positive.

When Marks and Warden were asked if they thought students were being responsible and keeping politics separate from the pandemic response, both said that wearing masks has been connected to politics when it really shouldn’t be. Both claimed that students aren’t wearing masks as much as employees of the College may think. Marks and Warden speculated that outside of the classroom and more regulated spaces, many students may not even wear masks at all.

Relative to other college campuses and general regional numbers, the College has successfully managed to keep COVID-19 cases low. However, some student perspectives on the campus response appear to conflict with the administration’s perspective, particularly regarding student vigiliance and communication. Regardless of the differing perspectives, one thing is certain: it is every student’s responsibility to wear their masks properly, care for others and be safe during this pandemic.

After the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and William Jewell College’s subsequent closure, College departments donated unused personal protective equipment (PPE) to area hospitals. In all, Jewell donated hospital beds, nitrile gloves, latex gloves, goggles, N95 masks, surgical face masks, disposable lab coats, Clorox wipes, caps and gowns from the various participating departments. 

In addition to masks and gloves, the nursing department donated eight of the department’s hospital beds to Truman Medical Center. 

The biology and chemistry departments donated gloves, goggles, masks, disposable lab coats, Clorox wipes and bleach from among their leftover lab supplies to Liberty Hospital. 

Joe Garcia, chief operating officer of the College, is leading the efforts of both securing and donating PPE. 

“It was more of a department-level decision, but we coordinated the reporting,” Garcia said, when asked about the decision to donate supplies. 

In total, the various departments were able to donate 96 boxes of nitrile gloves, 54 boxes of latex gloves, 39 pairs of goggles, 59 N95 masks and other face masks, 140 disposable lab coats, seven canisters of Clorox wipes, 200 gowns and 170 gowns to hospitals around the Kansas City area. 

Dr. MacLeod Walls, president of the College, spoke to the Monitor about the importance for Jewell to donate supplies, both to assist healthcare workers and continue the relationship between William Jewell and the Kansas City community. 

“We were honored and pleased to help by marshaling resources and assisting our healthcare partners during the pandemic. This experience has reminded us how important these relationships are to William Jewell and to our larger community,” said MacLeod Walls. 

The donation of supplies not only helped local hospitals gain more vital supplies but also serves as a reminder of the importance of institutions like Jewell serving and working with the local community – especially during extreme circumstances. 

On May 25, 2020 George Floyd, an unarmed black man, was murdered by a police officer who asphyxiated Floyd by kneeling on his neck for close to nine minutes. Floyd was arrested for alleged use of a counterfeit $20 bill. His murder was filmed and the video of the horrific act, in addition to the recent murders of Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery, sparked international outrage at police brutality, which led to protests and mobilized support for the Black Lives Matter movement. 

What follows is a description of the response to this situation from William Jewell College and its organizations. A future article will be published highlighting the extensive involvement of members of the community in protesting and standing against racism and police brutality.

Administration and Student Senate

William Jewell College and members of the Jewell community have responded with condemnation of the murder, racism and police brutality. On June 1, Dr. Elizabeth MacLeod Walls, president of the College and chief diversity officer, and Mario Magaña, interim Student Senate president, released joint statements to condemn the racist act and call for unity and support within the community. 

MacLeod Walls’ statement recognized the history of systemic racism and violence against black people in the U.S. and expressed empathy for people of color in, and beyond, the community. She also issued a call to action in the form of Radical Inclusivity from the Jewell community. 

“But there is hope. Our Radical Inclusivity work at Jewell has helped us not only to identify our challenges, but also to embrace our Values of Authentic Engagement, Inclusive Communities, and Courageous Citizenship as we continue to have difficult conversations about race, equity, and justice on our campus. The Jewell Family is nothing if not honest, kind, direct, and critically minded; we don’t varnish the truth nor do we exaggerate the problem. We are pursuing meaningful lives—which is why we will continue to encounter this moment with awareness, compassion, forthrightness, and commitment,” the statement said. 

MacLeod Walls announced plans for a “structured dialogue” to be hosted by Stephenie and Rodney Smith of Sophic Solutions later in June. More information will be released in the coming weeks. MacLeod Walls also called for critical reflection upon the issues and praised responses from the Jewell community.

In a comment to The Hilltop Monitor, MacLeod Walls described her process of formulating her response to the current situations. 

“I seek wisdom from my colleagues and others in the community as I write drafts of the statement,” said MacLeod Walls. “I also reach out to my peers at other institutions, seeking their wisdom. In this case my interactions with [Magaña] were also extremely helpful in terms of striking the right tone and approach.”

When asked about Jewell’s relationship to local police, MacLeod Walls said that Jewell has no formal affiliation with the local police departments. She said that if police will be on campus, they will be expected to abide by Jewell’s anti-harassment policies. Similarly, campus safety officers are “partners and vendors” who are expected to abide by the anti-harassment policy. MacLeod Walls did not mention any formal anti-harassment training given to campus safety officers or local police by the College. 

On the evening of June 2, MacLeod Walls’ letter was linked in a post on William Jewell College’s Facebook page, along with a highlighted portion, which read:

“We will, as we always do, come together to ask reflective questions, apply critical thought, and act with purpose in response to the turbulent and divisive moment in which we are living.  In the meantime, I applaud our Jewell community, and especially our students, for embracing every person—and everyone’s lived experience—in order to make us better, stronger, and more whole both as a College and as a nation.”

Several Jewell alumni expressed disapproval in the post’s comment section, particularly the statement’s failure to neither explicitly condemn police brutality nor reference the Black Lives Matter movement. As of this article’s publication, no other statement has been posted publicly to Jewell’s social media accounts.

When asked about the feedback, MacLeod Walls explained that social media can be an emotionally charged place for feedback and she encourages members of the community to view Jewell’s response holistically. She provided context for her motivation and thoughts while writing the statement. 

“I chose to write to our community from the heart, reflecting on my own literal journey through the roots of slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and the current Equity and Justice movement represented in Montgomery, Alabama. Through this journey, I came to understand in a palpable way the interconnection between the past and the current injustices African Americans encounter in daily life. This injustice is precisely why Radical Inclusivity at William Jewell is such important work—and why it must continue. I ended my message with words of hope, because I believe that through critical thought and civil discourse, William Jewell will do what it does best: Create space for collaborative reflection and opportunities for meaningful change both on and off of our campus,” MacLeod Walls said. 

Magaña’s statement on behalf of Student Senate explicitly and directly supported the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. The statement described the goals of BLM and called for students to learn from and act on those goals. 

“The message shared by the Black Lives Matter movement is simple: their lives matter just like anybody else’s,” the statement said. “We all have the right to life no matter our skin color, and no one should be treated differently because of it. A few of the radical and sustainable solutions proposed by the movement’s website are: Acknowledgement and Accountability for their Pain and Injustice, Divestment in the Police Force, and Investment in the Health and Prosperity of our Communities. With continued dialogue and conversation, we can all learn from this and find ways to reach a level of understanding.”

Magaña also called for students to take action within their own homes, own communities and on campus:

“Educate your families. Change has to start from within our homes before we can help those around us. We owe it to ourselves to teach those closest to us how to be accepting of others, no matter who they are. 

Speak out against indifferences. We cannot just let our peers and families add to the divide between our communities. We especially cannot just sit back and let the Black community fight this battle alone. 

Don’t be afraid to stand for what’s right. These times demand us to rise for the sake of the lives brutalized by an unjust and oppressive system. We must help build with them, and not take away from what must be accomplished. 

Amplify their voices, but don’t drown out their message with selfishness. Join the movement with solidarity, understanding, and abolition; not for anarchism and instigation. BE THE DIFFERENCE! BE THE SUPPORT!”

In a comment to The Hilltop Monitor, Magaña described the motivation behind his statement. 

“Senate’s response is my best effort to compile the various perspectives in the community, while not drowning out the message connected to Black Lives Matter movement. In this way, I offer up the support of Senate and my promise to keep the conversation ongoing. I also would like to challenge members of our community to continue to speak up and stand out for the sake of their neighbors in the Black community. The rest is up to you as people to make the difference on and off the Hill,” Magaña said. 

Magaña began drafting his statement several days before its publication after he witnessed and reflected upon the Jewell community’s reaction to the murder of George Floyd, protests in his memory and BLM. He consulted with MacLeod Walls and Ernie Stufflebean, associate dean of students and director of residence life, before they decided to release joint statements. 

“By simply taking the initiative to align the college with the movement and by standing in solidarity with the cause, we have proven how ready the school is to embrace radical inclusivity,” Magaña said. “With efforts like this, we are able to continue to educate our community and provide direction for activism. To be radically inclusive, means demonstrating extreme desire to accept and include those in our community. Our message should make it clear: that skin color is no exception to this definition.”

“Just please read the letters we sent out. I know these circumstances can create very polarizing opinions, but it is important that we do not divide from one another. Rather, we have to be prepared to engage, learn, and bridge the gaps through communication. Remember, Civil Rights are not a political issue. They’re a human issue,” Magaña concluded. 

Athletic Department

On May 31, Jewell’s athletic department posted a statement on its social media platforms in support and solidarity with people of color and condemning racism and hate. 

Tom Eisenhauer, director of athletics, explained the motivation behind the post and the actions of the athletic department to support people of color in the Jewell community. 

“Collectively, we felt it was important to issue a statement to show support for our students and staff of color. There were several staff members involved in the decision and we felt that staying silent was not an option. There are many people on our campus who are hurting right now and they need to know they are supported. That being said, a Tweet can’t be the end of the story.  Our engagement must be greater,” Eisenhauer said. 

Eisenhauer highlighted the need to recognize and acknowledge racism in our own community and on campus in order to help those hurting. This includes listening to and supporting students and staff of color who share their experiences and stories, in addition to actively providing opportunities for these stories to be shared.

“[The] campus embarked on the Radical Inclusivity journey about a year ago,” said Eisenhauer. “Our staff and coaches are fully committed to embracing a new way of thinking about inequity and working to identify weaknesses in our day to day. Furthermore, we are committed to hiring a diverse group of coaches and staff which, of course, goes beyond racial diversity. We will work with student leaders on campus and in SAAC to ensure that all people feel safe and welcome on this campus. Without dismissing what happens away from campus, we must be focused on improving the community we’re currently in. I believe that as students better grasp the challenges that many members of our community face, the better suited they’ll be to make changes wherever they land after Jewell. I want to be clear, all of us are on this journey together, not just the students. I know I still have much to learn and am thankful for the individuals on this campus that have challenged me and helped me grow.” 

SAAC and other student organizations

SAAC, the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, provided comment on the situation and the athletic department’s response through their 2020-21 co-presidents, Rhyann Fisher, senior psychological sciences and chemistry major, and Abby Dubinski, junior nursing and Applied Critical Thought and Inquiry major. Although SAAC did not directly contribute to the creation of the statement, they fully support the statement and are eager to continue work within the athletic department for racial equality. 

“Radical inclusivity is definitely an area we, and the rest of Jewell, are active in implementing. SAAC members are represented throughout other committees and groups on campus attending training sessions regarding diversity and inclusion… These experiences help SAAC because it widens the voices and experiences we have as a group. In the past we have teamed up with Student Senate for an education event regarding diversity and inclusion. Every athlete is [encouraged] to talk with their Coach or SAAC [representative] about any concern they may have. We are open to team up again with any other groups on campus to make a better experience for our athletes and students”

Fisher and Dubinski described current circumstances as an opportunity to renew efforts for equality and to evaluate how SAAC is participating in conversations of diversity and inclusion. They express hope that once people are back on campus in the fall, people will be ready to start having these more complex conversations both within SAAC and in collaboration with other organizations. They urge people to help right now by signing petitions, educating themselves, donating and more. 

“We are extremely saddened by all of these events,” Fisher and Dubinski said. “We know that our fellow students and athletes are hurting, and have different levels of being affected. We will not pretend like we know how anyone in African American or black community has felt. We want our students and athletes to know that SAAC is here for each of them and we will do all we can to help! We want our black students to know that we are here to use our voice on campus, within the GLVC, NCAA, and be [a part] of the solution as a whole. This has been a crazy year and do not be afraid to reach out for help. We are excited to be reunited on campus where we can take an ACTIVE role in improving the environment and know that we will be TOGETHER. We are here to listen and take action!”

SAAC also publicly acknowledged their support by making a post with the hashtag “#BlackoutTuesday” on their Instagram – this hashtag is part of a social media movement that aims to raise awareness of police brutality against black people and to shine a light on content created by black creators. 

SAAC was joined in their public demonstration of support on social media by other student organizations like Jewell’s fraternity chapters of Kappa Alpha, Lambda Chi Alpha and Phi Gamma Delta, as well as their sorority chapters of Delta Zeta and Zeta Tau Alpha. Mi Gente, Jewell’s club for Latino students, and QUILTBAG, Jewell’s club for LGBT+ students, also made posts of support using the “#BlackLivesMatter” hashtag.

CART

One of Jewell’s diversity and inclusion initiatives is the Climate Assessment and Response Team (CART). Tavarus Pennington, junior communications major and member of CART, explained how CART has not been involved in the College response to the murder of George Floyd and recent protests.

“[The] last time the CART convened was April 15. This was the only time that the group met following the transition to online classes… I tend to shy away from framing the functions and purpose of CART as a group to be consulted about racial issues on campus. Particularly issues directly pertaining to black students. Instead, [CART] is focused on taking incidents that demonstrate negative racial, economic, and gendered biases and formulating ways to positively respond to whatever situation may arise (ex. CART crafted the language and strategy for addressing cultural implications of tomahawk chop in February). Our focus is on creating actionable reforms to educate and promote inclusivity within our campus culture. So when asked about consultation in regards to support, it’s difficult to give a straight answer because we don’t necessarily provide consultation (or at least haven’t been asked to) and we don’t necessarily work to create proactive supports so much as reactive ones,” Pennington said. “[Secondly], I believe CART to be of the mind that the singling out of particular racial groups and the aligning of specific goals to benefit that group, is inadvisable as it ignores the other “cultural groups” our campus is host to. This trend is not isolated to the organization of CART itself but rather I view this perspective as a larger institutional one.”

CART has not provided a specific response to recent events, nor has expressed explicit support for BLM. Pennington explained that this lack of response is due in part to the decentralized nature of campus in the pandemic. Members of CART have not been able to understand how members of the community are reacting to or impacted by the circumstances due to this decentralization – making performing CART’s reactive capacities more difficult.