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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Throughout the fall semester of 2022, The Hilltop Monitor reported on the ongoing issue of academic freedom at William Jewell College. Concerns about whether or not the College’s administration – and its investigative council, the Racial Reconciliation Commission (RRC) – was properly living up to the College’s own commitment to academic freedom and broader academic standards with respect to academic freedom were raised by members of the Slavery, Memory, and Justice Project (SMJP). 

Because this issue is about academic freedom, it has a profound impact on the prospects for intellectual life at Jewell. After all, what is under consideration is students’ and faculty’s ability to pursue controversial subjects and use available evidence to create projects that contribute to the marketplace of ideas at Jewell. 

An article published Dec. 16 of 2022 gave an account of the claims made against the administration and the RRC, as well as some preliminary responses made by members of the administration. In order to get the administration’s perspective on this ongoing controversy, The Hilltop Monitor reached out to: Elizabeth MacLeod Walls, president of the College; Rodney Smith, vice president for access and engagement and RRC  chair; and Andrew Pratt, lead researcher for the RRC and dean emeritus of the chapel. To date, Smith has not responded to email communications, though The Hilltop Monitor attended one of his monthly meetings on Feb. 27, 2022,  with the RRC, where he updated commission members and others present on the commission’s  progress. An article on this meeting is forthcoming. 

After two email communications, Pratt declined to continue to comment, as he believed further communication with The Hilltop Monitor would undermine the investigation completed by faculty council and its report on the matter. MacLeod Walls responded to questions; this article will present both Pratt’s and MacLeod Walls’ responses to The Hilltop Monitor. Should Smith respond, The Hilltop Monitor will publish his responses in a separate article.

The Hilltop Monitor will present MacLeod Wall’s and Pratt’s responses via transcripts. Sections which are cut-out are either 1) greetings, 2) offers to schedule meetings, 3) errors in drafting emails or 4) in one case, on a matter pertaining to The Hilltop Monitor and the marketing department which requires more investigation, though an article is forthcoming. The Hilltop Monitor will also comment on certain portions of the responses given by MacLeod Walls and Pratt.

The Hilltop Monitor’s questions to MacLeod Walls and Pratt were informed by claims made against them by the SMJP. In order to understand the exchanges between The Hilltop Monitor and MacLeod Walls and Pratt, an overview of the controversy is merited.

Overview
On Dec. 5, 2022, Gary Armstrong, interim vice president of academic affairs, and Leesa McBroom, chair of faculty council and professor and chair of nursing, met with Student Senate and The Hilltop Monitor in order to present an account of faculty council’s executive summary of the report on claims made by students and faculty of the Slavery, Memory, and Justice Project. The SMJP is a group of students, alumni, and faculty which has conducted extensive research since Aug. 2020 on the history of slavery’s influence on the College. The SMJP plans to publish its final report on slavery’s influence on the College in December of this year. They will also present their scholarly research in a series of presentations at the upcoming Duke Undergraduate Colloquium in April.

The SMJP’s claims were as follows. Actions taken by the representatives of the administration showed preferential treatment in terms of access to archival materials to its own investigative council: the RRC. The RRC was established in April 2021 by MacLeod Walls.

Specifically: the SMJP alleged that the RRC’s lead researcher, Andrew Pratt, dean emeritus of the chapel, obtained privileged access to certain key materials – like nineteenth century Board of Trustee minutes and early financial documents – at a time when the SMJP students were denied equal access to the William Jewell College Archives.

Furthermore, the College administration, by hindering students’ full access to crucial historical sources related to slavery and the College’s history, undermined the SMJP’s effort to establish its scholarly credibility.  To be sure, SMJP students presented their work at Duke Colloquium in April of 2022 and in a series of Hilltop Monitor articles, but denial of access to those sources curtailed students’ ability to speak from an authoritative epistemic position to the Jewell community.

An email sent by MacLeod Walls on Aug. 30, 2021 to faculty and staff – but not students – stated that “it is the sole responsibility of the [Racial Reconciliation] Commission to determine what is true [about the College’s founding]…” This email made no mention of the SMJP or of their ongoing research into the history of the College.

Further, comments made by Macleod Walls and Smith at a May 2022 forum, where faculty, students, staff, administration, and RRC members were present, misrepresented Hayley Michael’s reasons for resigning from the RRC. Michael, now a Jewell alumna, is a member of the SMJP and former member of the RRC. In Feb. of 2022, Michael resigned from the RRC because, in her view,  student voices were not taken seriously in RRC meetings, nor in the compilation of the RRC’s report, published in Jan. of 2022. For example, Michael criticized the RRC’s report for including “various historical inaccuracies about the founders’ ties to slavery,” including exaggerating the anti-slavery actions of William Jewell, founder of the College.

Michael presented her reasons for resigning to Smith and they had a productive conversation. However, things changed in this previously mentioned May 2022 forum. Smith and MacLeod Walls – who were aware that Michael had resigned from the RRC in February – misrepresented the timeline of her resignation. Specifically, the president informed faculty, staff, students, RRC members and members of the Cabinet present that Michael had resigned just 10 days before the publication of an article in the Pitch.  In other words, MacLeod Walls, supported by Smith, had implied that Michael had been manipulated into resigning from the RRC in a media campaign to make the administration and the RRC look bad. These comments undermine Michael’s – and more broadly, the SMJP’s – scholarly credentials and ignored Michael’s principled criticism of the RRC in terms of its disregard for student voices and its flawed, unduly positive narrative of the College’s founders.  

A more comprehensive account of claims made by the SMJP can be found in The Hilltop Monitor’s article from Dec. 16, 2022; the article also includes Armstrong’s and McBroom’s responses to these claims.
 

The Hilltop Monitor will present the questions asked of Macleod Walls and Pratt and their responses via transcripts of emails. Should Smith respond, The Hilltop Monitor will publish his responses as soon as possible in a separate article. 

Questions to and Responses of MacLeod Walls

A full copy of The Hilltop Monitor’s questions, and MacLeod Walls’ responses, can be found here.

The bulk of the email communications between MacLeod Walls and The Hilltop Monitor pertained to comments she made about Michael at the May 2022 forum. Unfortunately, recordings or transcripts of this May 2022 forum are not known to exist. Instead, Michael was informed about these comments by faculty and staff present, who were shocked by the administration’s willingness to undermine Michael’s credentials as a student expert.

When The Hilltop Monitor asked MacLeod Walls about her comments at this meeting regarding Michael’s perceived reasons for leaving the RRC, her responses did not touch upon the substance of her comments. Instead, she claimed the meeting – which was attended by students, faculty, staff, and RRC members – was confidential. Indeed, she stated that “a breach in professional conduct” had occurred and asked Armstrong and McBroom to investigate Michael’s being informed about the meeting.

Questions to and Responses of Pratt  

A full copy of The Hilltop Monitor’s questions, and Pratt’s responses, can be found here. 

A careful reader might wonder why The Hilltop Monitor chose to ask such specific follow up questions having to do with how certain Early Financial Documents were uploaded, and how they were accessed. The questions are meant to illustrate to readers the workings of the archives. Historically, when materials were requested by the RRC, scans were taken of the relevant documents and uploaded to a private folder, hosted on the Archive’s OneDrive. Access to these folders required that individuals have a unique link, which acted as an access key.

Most readers would not know that this is how research requests were completed. Generally speaking, the ways in which the Archives stores and shares information is a mystery to faculty, students, and staff – unless they work at the Archives, or have previously requested access to information. Pratt’s assertion that crucial materials were uploaded onto a public website for all researchers, then, is a misleading assertion; one which depends on the individual asking these questions not to know how the Archives works. In fact, materials requested by the RRC – the Early Financial Papers, for example – were never put on a public facing site. If they had been, then claims made by the SMJP about inequality of access would have been defused. 

Although RRC researchers have been given digital copies of trustee records from the Civil War era, the administration has denied student researchers equal research privileges by preventing students from taking digital photographs or making scans of any trustee documents, even those more than a century and a half old. 

There is much about the Archives that remains unclear. For example, one might ask how exactly ‘informal advisors’ are integrated into the hierarchical structure of the organization. One might also ask what principles are used to decide which advisors get their own key to the space and under what conditions they can use it. Unfortunately, no further communication with Pratt is possible to clarify these issues.  

Moving forward, The Hilltop Monitor will switch gears and focus on the student’s perspective on this issue, starting with an interview with Black Student Alliance (BSA) and the soon to be formed History Club. The Hilltop Monitor will also continue to report on the progress in terms of implementing Faculty Council’s recommendations in order to improve the College’s commitment to academic freedom.

oSTEM at William Jewell College is a student-led organization intent on supporting and providing resources for STEM-orientated LGBTQIA+ students.

oSTEM, an abbreviated term for Out in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, is an internationally recognized nonprofit association with over 100 affiliated college and university chapters. The association –founded in 2009 as the first society to specifically support LGBTQIA+ STEM students — hosts national and regional conferences to bring awareness to diversity in science while also funding scholarships and mentorship programs for members.

oSTEM at Jewell was previously inactive due to changes in campus community and culture; however, the organization was reactivated mid-semester as interest regenerated.

Liz Payton, acting president for oSTEM and biochemistry major, said that she saw oSTEM at Jewell as an opportunity where she could navigate her own identity and also support others with similar insecurities about pursuing fields that are historically known to lack diversity.

After student leaders from several other inclusion-focused groups encouraged her to restart the organization in late January, Payton and her friend created an oSTEM Instagram account. By mid-February, Student Life took notice of the new Instagram page and reached out to begin the process of officially reinstating oSTEM at Jewell.

Specific to oSTEM and its mission, Payton explained the ways in which false biological sciences have been used to shut down conversations pertaining to sexual orientation and gender identity.

“There is no disputing that science and related fields have been used as a tool to harm minority communities and push a narrative of superiority and power in the past,” Payton said. “Despite the progress we have made away from this power dynamic, we are still seeing a lack of diversity in STEM.”

Taking advice from Dr. Rodney Smith, vice president of access and engagement, oSTEM at Jewell said a large part of their purpose is in inspiring future generations by laying the groundwork for inclusion in the present.

With LGBTQIA+ identities still underrepresented in occupational fields, oSTEM at Jewell hopes to look into reducing barriers for students who plan to attend graduate school or otherwise work in STEM-related careers.

“We are wanting to look at ways to reduce barriers for students as they move towards STEM careers or graduate school, and that would include skill-building workshops such as how to make a good STEM resume or ways to work on social confidence and presentation skill,” Payton said. “In this initiative, we will also help students look for potential research opportunities and other ways to increase their technical skills.”

oSTEM at Jewell further plans to eventually tackle issues like workplace stigma or hostility. Payton notes, however, that outside experts will need to lead the conversation on such serious topics.

“The overarching theme here is really just education and support,” Payton said. “We want students to know that they are valid in their own identities and [that] they belong in the STEM community and we want to provide some pathways [to help students] reach acceptance of themselves.” 

While oSTEM at Jewell is primarily an organization focused on the LGBTQIA+ STEM community, the club welcomes non-STEM majors as well. According to the organization’s current guidelines, non-STEM majors cannot be considered official members, but they are nonetheless welcomed at meetings to support friends or contribute to the conversation.

Rose Reynolds, associate professor and chair of biology, is the faculty sponsor for oSTEM at Jewell. Reynolds also sponsored the previous chapter of oSTEM several years ago.

A temporary cabinet will serve for the remainder of this semester and will be responsible for structuring the club and facilitating the upcoming elections of the permanent cabinet. The organization plans to elect an official cabinet for the 2021-22 academic year after becoming more established and stable.

“We want the process to be as transparent and democratic as possible so we felt that immediately asking oSTEM members to vote for a permanent cabinet would be unfair, especially as we are still trying to recruit members,” Payton said. 

As the organization is still trying to cultivate interest among the Jewell community, the temporary cabinet is not operating under harshly defined roles yet. Instead, each member is working together to meet the immediate needs of the organization. Once the permanent cabinet is elected, the stipulated cabinet roles as set aside in oSTEM’s constitution will become the guiding practice for the cabinet members. 

These roles include President, Director of Finances and Director of Membership. Though not decided upon yet, the cabinet is discussing adding the specific role of a Director of Marketing or Public Relations. 

However, Payton said that part of denoting the responsibilities of the cabinet positions will depend on the actual implementation of leadership and the personalities behind them.

“It is a fluid process with a lot of learning involved, so I think it would be wrong to rigidly fixate upon the roles indefinitely,” Payton said. “We trust that the previous oSTEM group worked out an efficient way to handle the logistics of the organization, and we decided to keep their leadership structure and just build upon it as needed.”

The emphasis on fluidity and reflection is especially important given the difficult conditions of restarting a club during a pandemic wherein oSTEM at Jewell is rendered unable to effectively host recruiting events under Operation Safe Campus. Payton said that the club will take a risk-benefit assessment approach in hosting meetings next fall.

“With such serious topics like gender and sexual identity, it can be difficult for people to express themselves in front of others,” Payton said. “On top of that, expressing themselves in a Zoom call may be even harder. Face-to-face meetings seem to be the more comfortable option to engage in such dialogue, but we also want to ensure that students are physically safe during the pandemic.” 

Potentially interested students can follow the club on Instagram (@jewell_ostem). More information about oSTEM chapters can be found on oSTEM’s official site.

Alongside many other efforts to highlight the importance of equity and inclusion, students, staff and organizations at William Jewell College have come together to honor Black History Month despite the challenges that COVID-19 presented this year.

To account for the decreasing number of students on campus and the need for socially-distanced events, organizations have modified traditional events and piloted unique celebrations in the month of February.

One organization, the Black Student Alliance (BSA), is set to host their annual Jewell Kitchen event Thursday, Feb. 25, to celebrate local foods and Black culinary influences, according to BSA President Tavarus Pennington, junior communication and English major.

The event will take place on the floor above the cafeteria in rooms 221 and 222 of the Yates-Gill College Union. BSA will provide adequate space for all attendees to eat socially-distanced and the food will be served by the Fresh Ideas staff. Pennington explained that BSA wanted the event to remain “as true to tradition as safely possible,” and he hopes that it will look similar to the current Jewell cafeteria experience.

Students can purchase tickets for the event in the Union during Jewell time until Thursday or until all tickets are sold. 

Additionally, Student Life hosted a Black History Month Jeopardy night Feb. 8 in the Melrose lobby. However, with limitations on in-person gatherings, many celebrations were moved onto social media. 

On Instagram, the Gender Issues and Feminism club (GIF) celebrated Black womxn who had “contributed to the advancement of black people and worked hard to create spaces where black bodies are appreciated and free,” as they wrote in their #WomenCrushWednesday post Feb. 3. 

GIF honored Tarana Burke, founder of the #MeToo movement and activist against sexual violence, Feb. 3; Maya Wiley, founder and president of the Center for Social Inclusion and racial justice advocate, Feb. 10; Majora Carter, founder of the non-profit environmental justice group Sustainable South Bronx, Feb. 17; and Alicia Garza, special projects director for the National Domestic Workers Alliance and co-creator of #BlackLivesMatter, Feb. 24.

Additionally, they held an event on Black feminism on Feb. 24. Lydia Enge, senior political science and communication major and GIF’s communications chair, led a presentation and discussion on Black feminism, which included definitions of Black feminism, a brief outline of its history and supplementary videos which further described the importance and origins of Black feminism.

Although the COVID-19 pandemic has slowed BSA’s ability to generate sustained interest in the organization itself, Pennington explained that Black history carries importance regardless.

“To me, celebrating Black history is a solemn act of self-reflection and humble appreciation and respect,” Pennington said. “The ethos of solitude that the pandemic presents us with seems to be perfect for any productive ‘celebration’ of Black history. With that said, obviously the pandemic has made it very difficult to plan engaging material activities to do with Black History Month. That’s not even to mention the bitter and downright dangerous cold this month has brought us.”

Vice President for Access and Engagement, Dr. Rodney Smith, reiterated this sentiment as well, emphasizing that Black history and Black History Month is more than just a celebration to many.

“It is important for Black people to know about themselves and about our ancestors, even in the face of a pandemic,” Smith said. “We still need to find ways to continue to celebrate because it’s important to people’s psychological mental health, to people’s beliefs about themselves [and] to people’s self esteem. It also contributes to this idea of self-efficacy, [which] means a belief in your ability.” 

In Smith’s first year at Jewell, several projects intended to supplement the college’s Radical Inclusivity efforts have surfaced and propelled forward with several significant developments, many of which are aimed at amplifying historically-accurate and diverse perspectives.

Recognizing that Jewell was founded as an all-male, whites-only college, these efforts, in addition to Black History Month, can assist students and staff in taking a moment to honor the history behind the institution from which they benefit.

This semester, Jewell implemented a new history course, HIS 204: Slavery, Memory, and Justice, which is taught by Associate Professor of History Dr. Christopher Wilkins to encourage informed conversation on Jewell’s history with slavery and highlight the importance of historical accuracy. Overall, the course is intended to investigate Jewell’s connection to the ubiquity of slavery in the area at the time of its inception.

After realizing that slavery likely played a role in Jewell’s founding, Dr. Smith explained the impact that this revelation had on him.

“And it just dawned on me,” Smith said. “ A few weeks ago as I was walking across campus, I looked over at Jewell Hall, and [I thought], if that is indeed true that enslaved Africans helped to build that building, could they ever imagine me? Could they ever imagine a descendent of enslaved Africans being a part of the leadership on their college campus? It’s a pretty humbling thought from my vantage point.”

To further diversify perspectives, students from various organizations and staff, including Pennington and Smith, launched the Critical Foundations Collection in Curry Library that focuses on amplifying the voices of people and authors from marginalized demographics. The collection features books about BIPOC, LGBTQIA+, feminism, religions alternative to Christianity and more. Sophomore digital communications major Claire Henry, senior physics and Oxbridge history of ideas major and engagement chair for GIF, Catherine Dema, and others were also involved in the initiative.

BSA was one of the leading organizations in developing the Critical Foundations Collection, and according to Pennington, the organization plays an important part in vitalizing Black history given the context and culture at Jewell.

“The importance of black history to BSA is supercharged particularly within a context where we attend a predominantly white institution that boasts a critical approach to liberal arts thinking alongside a predominantly white faculty and core curriculum,” Pennington said. “It seems the natural role of BSA is to contest this sort of culture.”

With such a heavily-Eurocentric curriculum for K-12 and most higher-education institutions in the United States, Smith echoes the importance of diversifying perspectives and highlighting Black history.

“In order to be considered an educated individual or to be thought of as being well-read, you have to read certain pieces,” Dr. Smith said, “and the pieces that we are saying we have to read, historically, have not been very diverse; they haven’t come from a diversity of perspectives. I’m beginning to believe and understand that you’re not [actually] well-read until you’re reading a diversity of perspectives. That fact alone heightens the importance of black history.”

Overall, Smith elaborates, these efforts to honor Black History Month as well as the achievements in permanently including historically-accurate and diverse perspectives can go a long way in inspiring new generations to pursue opportunities of their own.

“How do we gain beliefs in our ability? We gain [self-efficacy] through a couple of ways,” Dr. Smith said. “One of the ways is through vicarious influences: if you see somebody else who looks like you, who is doing this thing or who has done this thing, then it triggers something in you to say, ‘Well, maybe I could do that too.’ It’s important for us to continue to visit those vicarious opportunities so people can see themselves. History gives us an opportunity to expand those opportunities and expand those incidences where [we] can see reflections of ourselves.”